Related stories:
Iranian Jews don’t trust that country’s leadership, with reason
With my training and years of experience teaching Jewish history, I feel uniquely qualified to comment on the Iran nuclear deal (as well as the science of climate change and genetic engineering). And why not? Everybody else — including those as “qualified” as I am — seems to have an opinion. But from the rhetoric of this debate, it seems as if many people are shooting more from the hip than thinking with their heads.
So here’s my opinion: I support this agreement, mainly because I have yet to hear from its opponents any plausible alternative strategy. Nor have I heard any convincing argument for why voting it down won’t lead to a much worse outcome than what we have now. But most importantly, given my relative ignorance about nuclear science, I have tried to listen to experts who actually have the qualifications to evaluate the pros and cons.
I have searched for expert opinion that opposes the agreement. Most of what comes up is unimpressive. The former commander of the USS Cole, which was attacked by al-Qaida, opposes it. So do a number of obscure academics and relatively low-level former officials. John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, under George W. Bush, is also in opposition, but Bolton has disqualified himself since he has embraced a far-right political agenda of his own.
More seriously, former Israeli Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror has also criticized the agreement. Amidror held various senior positions in the Israeli defense establishment, including military intelligence. He believes that the agreement will create a more dangerous world and will ultimately lead to the use of force. At the same time, he warns against hysteria and says that the agreement does give Israel more time to prepare for what he believes will be an inevitable conflict.
Why, I wonder, has Amidror’s analysis not received more play from the forces opposing the agreement? Why do they choose, instead of a military expert, to feature a Holocaust survivor in full-page ads in the New York Times? Could it be that a cool, nuanced analysis doesn’t suit their purpose of whipping up the kind of apocalyptic hysteria that Amidror warns against?
While there is some overheated rhetoric on the other side, such as President Obama’s warning that rejecting the deal will lead to war, I am struck by how much of the support for the deal comes from experts in diplomacy, military affairs and nuclear weapons. Their analysis, like Amidror’s on the other side, is couched in qualified, often cautious terms. So, most recently, 29 of America’s top nuclear scientists, including five Nobel Prize winners, have endorsed the agreement. They call it “innovative” in terms of the constraints it places on Iran and the mechanisms of verification. Separately, a group of former diplomats, national security officials and political figures, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, have also endorsed the approach taken by the negotiators.
Perhaps most significant of all is the statement (funded by the Blue White Future movement) by 69 former generals and other high officials in Israel’s security establishment who argue that the Iran agreement is now a fact and that Israel should adapt to it. They also believe, contrary to what most Israeli politicians are saying, that it is on balance good for Israel. The signatories include two former heads of the Shin Bet, Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon; Shlomo Gaza, former chief of Military Intelligence; and Uzi Eilam, the head of Israel’s Atomic Energy Agency. In addition, Efraim Halevy, former head of the Mossad, and Amos Yadlin, former head of IDF Military Intelligence, have written separate analyses making the same arguments.
It is also notable that some of these experts, like Ayalon, argue that Iran is a distraction from the real challenge to Israel’s existence: the occupation of the West Bank. For the record, most Israeli security experts also oppose a permanent occupation of the territories.
It seems that most of the politicians in Israel, as well as their American boosters, are acting out of fear and hysteria, while most of the military and security people, those with real expertise, are on the other side, urging calm and reasoned analysis.
If we examine the history of the State of Israel (and here I do have some expertise), its strength derives not from end-of-the-world rhetoric like Benjamin Netanyahu’s, but from the sober realism of security experts whose model is Israel’s founder, David Ben-Gurion. Perhaps it is time for American Jews to start listening to them.
David Biale is the Emanuel Ringelblum distinguished professor of Jewish history at U.C. Davis.