Controversial agreement with Iran needs a chance

Richard Fulton

After nearly 20 months of hard negotiations, Iran and a coalition of the leading powers in the world have come to an agreement to stop Iran from producing any nuclear devices for at least the next 15 years and potentially the next 25 years.

President Obama has stated that the agreement is not based upon trust, but upon verification.

Hard-line Republicans and pro-Israeli members of Congress vowed to stop the agreement even before they saw its particulars.

Fortifying the president’s case is the end results, a 109-page agreement with very specific responsibilities given to not only Iran but to the International Atomic Energy Agency that has the responsibility to police the agreement. Their inspectors, doubled in number, have been given nearly maximum ability to go into any nuclear facility including military ones most on a continuing basis, a few based upon suspicion.

The very specificity of the agreement argues for its completeness.

Remember, this is not an agreement just between the U.S. and Iran, it includes the UK, France, Russia, China all of which have signed off on the specifics.

This has been one of the rare occasions when international sanctions have worked.

As the New York Times review of the accord notes: “The accord allows continuous surveillance at enrichment sites and at centrifuge production and storage sites.” Iran has also agreed to scrap a key nuclear facility and to get rid of most of its stockpile of fissionable materials.

Iran wanted to continue to develop advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium. They now have to wait 10 years before proceeding with any such research.

The US wanted more, but at least this delays any real progress for Iran. In effect, Iran is at this point now if the deal does not go through, so what is there to lose?

In exchange, of course, sanctions will be gradually lifted — though ready to be reapplied if Iran cheats on the deal. The ability for Iran to sell its oil on the international market will be affected soonest.

The arms embargo, part of the sanctions, will be lifted after eight years for ballistic missiles and five years for conventional weapons. Russia and China, suppliers of weapon sales to Iran, strongly supported Iran in this compromise.

When one looks at the history of Iranian relations in the Middle East, it is a mixed bag.

Iran has never invaded another country in post-WW II history.

However, it fought a vicious war with Iraq when that country invaded it.

Saudi Arabia, an American friend, is now bombing and supporting a regime in Yemen.

Iran has been a major supplier of aid to several groups in the Middle East that support terrorist activities. But so has Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Russia and others. That does not excuse Iran, but it illustrates that it is tough being righteous in using this against the agreement.

Note that Israel not only has its own nuclear weapons, a fact not often referred to in this debate, but has invaded neighbors and supported armed groups in the region.

My point is that few are very pure in the Middle East when it come to cross-nation interference, including, of course, the United States.

Why should this agreement be supported by Congress?

First of all, if the US turns its back on an agreement they were primarily responsible for and that the other major nations of the world supported, then the US will have lost significant influence in international affairs. Trust in its word would be severely undermined.

Furthermore, there are safeguards against Iran’s cheating, with sanctions waiting in the background.

In the end, what is there to lose? The alternative may be military in nature, and we’ve seen how little that often accomplishes.

In the end, diplomacy may create the basis for long term better relations with Iran and a more stable Middle East.