Several days after the news of an interim deal with Iran on its nuclear program, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) penned an editorial summarizing many conservative criticisms of the agreement. Partisan politics aside, Republicans have consistently been much more hawkish on the issue of Iran, as evidenced by moments such as John McCain’s famous “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” gaffe in 2007. Now, however, many prominent Democrats, such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), have joined in criticizing of the deal. It’s important to state first and foremost, the agreement is not perfect. However, despite its flaws, it has succeeded in putting the breaks on the Iranian program and allowing diplomats greater time to negotiate a long-term solution.
One of the key criticisms from Senator Cruz and others is that the deal does not dismantle any of the Iranian centrifuges or enrichment sites. However, this censure overlooks the deal’s temporary nature. President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and numerous officials have emphasized that the agreement is not designed to solve the issue of the nuclear program in the long-term. Its primary purpose, from the Western perspective, was to slow the Iranian program, which it has done. The deal specifically states that Iran “will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of six months.” This will prevent Iran from using this set of negotiations to buy time for more nuclear enrichment, allowing for a longer time period to negotiate the final agreement.
Another favorite critique of the agreement, and of the apparent position of the Western powers, is that it does not completely dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. This is certainly a bitter pill to swallow, especially in Israel, but for the success of diplomacy, it is a necessary one. Iran, if willing to abide by the mandated safeguards and inspections that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has put in place, would be able to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. While an Iran without any nuclear program of any kind would be the ideal outcome for these negotiations, there is a domestic constituency in Iran proud of their nation’s achievements, and who demand to maintain the nuclear program as a matter of national pride. No agreement will be possible if Iranian negotiators cannot sell it at home, and an end to the nuclear program is a deal breaker.
The specter of North Korea continues to haunt the negotiations, with critics including Senator Cruz claiming that just as North Korea used a deal to gain time for nuclear enrichment, so will Iran. To be fair, it’s not possible to predict how Iran’s government will choose to react in six-months’ time, and it may very well choose to continue on the course of nuclear enrichment. However, the current deal’s structure is to have the necessary inspections and verification measures in place at the three main Iranian enrichment sites of Natanz, Fordow, and Arak well before the six-month deadline. As such, any attempts to circumvent the agreement and continue enriching to higher percentages will be detected, and if inspectors are prevented from doing their jobs, the international community will have reason to doubt Iranian sincerity on the deal. This means that sanctions can be reapplied swiftly and pressure reapplied once more.
Rosa Brooks, a contributor for Foreign Policy notes that we should not let “perfect become the enemy of the good.” However, Ms. Brooks also concedes that there are problems with the current agreement. The prospect that Iran will most likely be able to maintain a nuclear program of some sort is hardly going to sooth feelings in Tel Aviv, Riyad, or on Capitol Hill. The current negotiations also fail to address issues outside of the nuclear program, such as the devastating Syrian Civil War and Iranian support for Hezbollah. However, from the beginning, the deal was supposed to be temporary, with a limited scope, designed to give diplomats flexibility and time to negotiate a final agreement. Hawkish concerns about this accord will not change what has already been agreed to, but can be constructively considered when the next round of negotiations on the final status of the Iranian program begin.
Image credit: csmonitor.com