The controversial agreement struck this week between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) has turned into a geopolitical Rorschach test. Everyone sees what he or she wants to see in the deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.
Israel and other critics charge that negotiators caved, giving Tehran a pass that delays, but does not derail, its plans to develop a nuclear bomb. One pro-Israel pundit called the pact “the realization of the deepest fears and dire predictions.”
Detractors decry the 10-year expiration date and note that Iran will rake in billions of dollars once current sanctions are lifted, money that may be used to fund global terror.
These are legitimate concerns and must not be dismissed as Congress — and the world — debate the deal.
But knee-jerk condemnation, especially of the sort motivated by domestic politics during a presidential campaign season, must not dominate that debate. Critics need to read the actual text of the agreement and then ponder which is preferable: an Iran bound by this pact, which includes intrusive inspections, a 98-percent elimination of Iran’s centrifuges and severe caps on enriched uranium, versus Iran unbound by any commitments at all.
Absent this deal, it is unlikely sanctions could be maintained at the same level as before. And sanctions in which the United States goes it alone would have no effect.
Worse, Iran would gallop ahead with its nuclear ambitions. Don’t like a 10-year pathway to a bomb? How does six months sound?
Some rip the deal because it legitimizes a hateful, anti-Semitic regime. There is truth to that. But negotiators didn’t work on this for 20 months because the ayatollahs are good guys. They are very bad guys, so bad that the civilized world felt compelled to rein them in.
Even conceding the deal’s deficiencies, what are the alternatives? Reintroduce sanctions? They worked well enough to get Iran to the table, but even under sanctions, Iran increased its centrifuge production many-fold.
That leaves war. Imagine how that would play out. Military experts say air power alone could not subdue Iran. Invasion and occupation failed utterly in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be impossible to pull off in the far mightier Islamic Republic of Iran.
And so we remain cautiously supportive of the deal, and we urge Congress to investigate it thoroughly during the next 60 days.
To borrow from Winston Churchill, negotiated compromise with a bitter enemy is the worst form of problem-solving, except for all the others.