Like most readers, I must rely on the judgments of experts as I make up my mind about the proposed agreement with Iran. This column describes what I’ve learned and why the agreement deserves our support.
The agreement was negotiated with Iran by representatives of Germany, France, United Kingdom, China, Russia, the European Union, and the USA, all of which have experienced terrorist attacks. Their unanimous commitment to economic sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table. American leadership brought that team together, and the one thing that unites it is refusal to risk proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran. Their lasting cooperation demonstrates the importance of the agreement. These nations are not united on other aspects of Mideast policy and will not let the negotiations be used to hammer Iran on other matters. Their experts and leaders believe that the agreement is in their interest.
Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to President George H W Bush wrote that, “In my view, the (Iran Deal) meets the key objective, shared by recent administrations of both parties, that Iran limit itself to a strictly civilian nuclear program with unprecedented verification and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council…The world’s leading powers worked together effectively because of U.S. leadership. To turn our back on this accomplishment would be an abdication of the United States’ unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among our allies and friends. We would lose all leverage over Iran’s nuclear activities. The international sanctions regime would dissolve. And no member of Congress should be under the illusion that another U.S. invasion of the Middle East would be helpful.”
The agreement is supported by American military experts in an open letter by thirty-six retired American Generals and Admirals who said, “America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply. There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon…If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table.”
Leading American nuclear scientists have studied the agreement and determined that Iran will not be able to secretly develop a nuclear weapon during its 25 year term. They state that the agreement has “much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework…we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely…”
The Cato Institute, a very conservative American think tank funded primarily by Charles Koch (Koch Brothers) reported that the deal will be effective and is the best option available.
There are valid reasons for mutual distrust. Iran has imprisoned Americans that we say are civilians for spying and subversion. They held American hostages after their revolution in the 1970s. That revolution deposed the dictatorship that we imposed on them after overthrowing their democratically elected government. We did that to protect European and American control of Iranian petroleum.
Efraim Halevy, former Director of the Mossad (the Israeli equivalent of the CIA) supports the deal saying “There is going to be a verification system in place which is second to none and has no precedent…if the Iranians are going to try and cheat, there will be ways and means of finding this out.”
We should be celebrating a foreign policy success that reduces the risk of nuclear weapons being used against us or anyone else. But loud opposition to the deal continues. Why?
- Prime Minister Netanyahu and allied Israeli interests want to prevent Iran from emerging as a regional economic and political power – a goal unrelated to the nuclear negotiation.
- The Sunni ruled kingdom of Saudi Arabia (an Islamic dictatorship allowing less political freedom than Iran) wants to keep Iranian oil off world markets and doesn’t want any Shiite Muslim nation to be strong.
- Republicans in Congress unanimously oppose the agreement. Surprised? Why? They consistently attack whatever the President says or does by raising serious-sounding concerns that are not backed by facts and research. Their only alternative strategies for denying nuclear weapons to Iran are war or unilateral economic sanctions.
It is time to clear the air of the disinformation produced by self-serving opponents of the deal and to move ahead with it. We should also give credit to the skilled diplomats from all the participating nations. They have made the world a bit safer for us all.
Another thoughtful piece, Bob. It’s too bad that you are going to catch hell from the right wing. Iran is a theocracy and, as the mullahs see it, we are evil. “True Believers” can be very dangerous, especially when they are on a “mission from God.” But that cannot stop us from using our brains. Not every problem can be solved with bombs and bullets. I agree with your position on this issue.