After an American-led coalition of world powers and Iran announced the outline of a nuclear accord last week, it is difficult to be optimistic about its chances to survive the U.S. Congress. While Pope Francis praised the agreement at his Easter Mass, he does not command the influence of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who succinctly termed the agreement “a very bad deal.” And though Republican moderates like Senator Bob Corker are so far reserving judgment, that caution does not extend to the broader Republican caucus. House Speaker John Boehner, who recently opined that “the world is on fire,” could push legislation to undo the deal’s provisions.
There are several good reasons to suspect the merits of the pact. First, the agreement has the support of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei has presided for 26 years over a regime that has defined itself through antagonism towards America. Second, as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has said, talks with Iran began with the goal to deny Iran the capability to build a nuclear weapon, and they now aim to limit the scope of that capability. This observation implies that codifying Iran’s capability to build a nuclear weapon could scare Middle East powers into a nuclear arms race. Kissinger’s objection ignores, though, that the U.S. missed its chance to negotiate over only the scope of Iran’s nuclear capability. In 2003, when Iran was beginning its nuclear program, President Bush rejected Iran’s offer to talk.
Congress refrains from voting on this deal for now because it is America’s least-bad option regarding Iran by far. The agreement is almost implausibly stringent and comprehensive. Iran will reduce its active centrifuges from 19,000 to 5,000. Its enrichment plant at Fordo will not produce fissile material for 15 years, and activity at Natanz, its other enrichment facility, will be internationally monitored. Iran will ship almost all its enriched uranium out of the country. Most importantly, the International Atomic Energy Agency “will be able to inspect any facility, declared or otherwise, as long as it is deemed to be ‘suspicious.’”
These conditions amount to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.” Any possible cheating to build a nuclear weapon would receive “almost instantaneous recognition.” In return, the U.S. and the U.N. would gradually reduce sanctions and recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium (minimally).
An alternative policy would be to reject the deal and redouble sanctions, with the aim of so weakening Iran that it unilaterally renounces every component of its nuclear program. This would not happen. It would be a national humiliation that Iran could not countenance. Increasing sanctions would heighten Iran’s economic isolation and strengthen hardline Islamists. Correspondingly, Iran would be more likely to choose to “race” to produce a nuclear weapon, which it can currently do in only two to three months, as compared to over a year with this deal’s framework.
A third choice is some measure of military action. This would be foolish and costly. Shia-majority Iran has proved effective at combating (Sunni-dominated) ISIS, which the U.S. is fighting. Striking Iran would eliminate a potent, if tacit, U.S. partner in that fight. It would also give the impression that America does not differentiate between different manifestations of Islamic faith and ruin what popular support America retains in Muslim nations. That is not an irrelevant consideration given we are often compelled to partner with those countries.
Military options would also lead to a familiarly endless calculus. What would be America’s aim – to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? It is perhaps impossible to eradicate. Should the U.S. kill scientists and personnel? The Iranian military wouldn’t just stand by. Perhaps we should degrade Iranian military capabilities. This would mean war, with lots of troops involved. If that effort were successful, Iran’s political regime would fall. Would the next government have any popular legitimacy whatsoever? Would America need to station troops in Iran to subdue a hostile population? Would those interventions safeguard America’s security interests?
Properly implemented, this agreement demonstrates America’s ability to make the world more prosperous, peaceful and secure. It is not just a product of the Obama administration, but is supported by Russia, China, India and Europe as well. It gives the West better chances and more time to detect possible nuclear weapons development, and to prevent nervous allies from starting an arms race, than if we rejected it. As with the Soviet Union, linking Iran to global economic and ideological markets could advance political liberalization, free enterprise, individual rights and even the fall of the regime. Iran’s people, especially its youth, are ready for that opening – in 2009, millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest a rigged election.
America should stop while it is ahead. As Sparta told Athens in the Peloponnesian War, “[T]he prudent are those who secure their gains looking toward the element of uncertainty.” Athens didn’t listen. Congress should give Obama time: for the deal to prove its merits, and for the Iranian regime to atrophy. That probably won’t happen.
