Many Republicans will oppose the Iran-nuclear deal to discredit President Obama and some Democrats will succumb to pressure from Israel, but the ultimate choice is whether politics and pressure will overrule the world’s interest in constraining Iran’s nuclear program, writes ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
Completion of the agreement to restrict the Iranian nuclear program puts into sharp relief the choice for anyone who weighs in on the topic and especially for the U.S. Congress, which will have an opportunity to accept or reject the deal.
Gone is any meaningful kibitzing on how well the negotiators are doing their jobs. Gone are endless speculative permutations of how different issues might be resolved. Gone is conjecturing about how the outline that was the framework agreement announced in April will be fleshed out with detailed terms. The question has been stripped down to a simple and easy-to-understand form: it is a choice between the agreement that has just been announced, and no agreement at all about the Iranian nuclear program.
We can finally get beyond the sterile rhetoric about good deals and bad deals and the vacuous clichÃ© that no deal is better than a bad deal. Comparison between this agreement and no agreement is what determines whether the agreement is bad or good. A good deal is one that is better than no deal; a bad deal is one that is worse.
It has always been a fantasy that a “better deal” than what emerges from these negotiations would somehow be possible. The long, arduous, deadline-extending nature of the negotiations that ended in Vienna makes the notion that something “better” could have been wrung out of the Iranians seem all the more phantasmagorical. Awareness that five other countries besides the United States and Iran are parties to this agreement, and that some of the most recent hard negotiations have taken place within the P5+1, ought further to dispel this notion.
The alternative to the agreement, i.e., no agreement, would mean no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program beyond the basic obligations that apply to Iran as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. It would mean that Iran could spin as many centrifuges as it wanted. It would mean Iran would be free to enrich as much uranium as it wanted, to whatever level of enrichment it wanted. It would mean Iran could configure nuclear reactors however it wanted no matter how much plutonium this produced. It would mean an end to unprecedented levels of international monitoring and inspection. It would mean discarding the most restrictive regimen that any state had ever negotiated to be placed on its own nuclear program.
It is remarkable how, on the very issues on which many opponents of any agreement with Iran claim to be focusing, matters would be much worse if they achieved their goal of killing the agreement. If a supposed problem is, for example, that Iran is being permitted to have too much enrichment infrastructure, it would be worse under the alternative of no agreement, in which Iran could expand that infrastructure without limit.
Or if it is a problem that certain restrictions would be binding for only ten years or so, it would be worse under the no-agreement alternative, in which there would be zero years of restrictions. And so forth.
As the inevitable obfuscation about this agreement ensues over the coming weeks, the public and the Congress need to be reminded of exactly what the choice is, and of how simple and clear that choice is notwithstanding the obfuscation.
And those who argue or vote against the agreement should be held to account for what they in effect are arguing or voting for. They should be made to explain to the rest of the country why, whatever may be the true reasons for their opposition, they are supporting a step that would not only kill the best chance for ensuring the Iranian nuclear program remains peaceful but also would remove the special restrictions and scrutiny to which that program is subject now. They should be made to explain why, after their endless alarms about Iran’s nuclear activity, they are supporting a step that would unleash that activity.
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)
What is worse is that Israelâ€™s Prime Minister has the audacity to come on television on cue, spouting the same nonsense accusing Iran of being a threat and aggressor in the region.
Iran is a member of the NPT, unlike Israel who is not
The US government only recently declassified a 1987 report documenting Israelâ€™s secret nuclear weapons program. ttp://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/12/nuc%20report.pdf . Evidence, that Israel is the only nuclear armed state in the region.
Why didnâ€™t Obama (who pretends to be President) mention Israelâ€™s 300 Nukes which is an obvious â€œExistential Treatâ€ to the whole region ?
Instead the American people and the Israeli public are given the impression that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons, when in actual fact they are not and on the contrary the Iranian people have been deprived of nuclear power for domestic use and deprived of vital medicines due to decades of strict sanctions imposed on them.
Give Iran a break!
Let free markets and free trade and â€œnon-interferenceâ€ become a reflection of the natural system of democracy and liberty.
WHAT “CHOICE” HAS BEEN MADE ON THE LIFTING OF SANCTIONS?
Mr. Pillar sees the Iran so-called “deal” as something we (US) have forced
to contain, limit etc. Iran. (This assumes, of course that Iran is a
threat which as Robert Parry has written, it is not.)
What agreements have been made about the lifting of sanctions?
I am waiting for an answer.
What happened to Mr. Pillar’s eloquent analysis of what negotiations
are? These insights have morphed into “Our way or else!” Once again
assuming the truth that Iran is a threat to American “security”.
Will a similar “deal” now be worked out with the State of Israel
according to the many recommendations overwhelming passed
by the UN General Assembly. (Oppose by the US and Israel.)
—-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA