Nuclear deal with Iran better than alternatives
The reactions to last week’s Iranian nuclear deal from President Obama’s political opponents were as shrill as they were predictable.
He’s an appeaser! A Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century! The deal is “a historic mistake”! Iran will soon have nuclear weapons pointed toward Toledo, Tulsa and Tel Aviv! Rebuild those bomb shelters!
But when you take a deep breath and consider that many of the figures making these hysterical pronouncements were part of the mob that was champing at the bit a decade ago to invade Iraq, and offering assurances that it would never, never, turn into a prolonged occupation, it’s hard to take them all that seriously. From a clear-eyed perspective, the Iranian nuclear deal cobbled together by the United States and five other nations is the best this country and its allies can expect to get right now.
It’s not perfect. But it’s good enough.
No, the United States will not begin operating under the illusion that hard-liners in Iran are now genial and cuddly, and, no, we should not look the other way when the regime commits human rights abuses, props up terrorist groups or peddles rhetoric calling for the demise of the United States or Israel. But the treaty at least pries open the door slightly to a more constructive relationship, puts off the day that Iran has the capacity to construct a nuclear weapon and, perhaps, will help reshuffle the deck in the Middle East.
The agreement allows Iran to keep enriching uranium that it can use for its own nuclear-energy program, but not enough that could be used for a bomb. This will be enforced through inspections. In exchange, many of the sanctions that had been levied against Iran since the 1970s will be lifted, though some will remain in place. Restrictions on nuclear research and development will be lifted a decade from now, while other restrictions will remain for up to 25 years.
Obama told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman Tuesday, “We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran.
We are not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran … (But) I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”
All Obama’s opponents have had to offer as an alternative is … another war in the Middle East. Even if the United States targeted suspected nuclear sites, Iran would be able to rebuild them in short order and then we’d be right back where we started, except we’d be dealing with a regime even more rabidly hostile to us, and an Iranian public more inclined to rally around its leaders.
And is there any appetite for a ground invasion of Iran? Absolutely not.
It would be much more complicated and costly than invading Iraq, with about as much likelihood of success.
Also, a destabilized regime in Iran could well open the door to something much worse, as we’ve witnessed with the Islamic State’s advances across Iraq and Syria.
As many observers have pointed out in recent days, the United States was able to hatch treaties with the Soviet Union not all that long after Nikita Khrushchev pounded a shoe on a table and vowed to bury us. Iran doesn’t pose a threat of similar proportions. This is a treaty we can – and should – accept.