Support strengthens for Iran nuclear deal
The sanctions, the dealmakers: a look at the issues
POSTMEDIA NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Despite heavy lobbying from Israel to kill the recent nuclear deal with Iran by imposing stronger sanctions, the U.S. Congress appears determined to let the treaty play out.
Any new sanctions would scupper the deal and thereby seriously set back negotiations, profoundly upset U.S. allies and possibly lead to military action that could inflame the entire region, experts say.
Congress’s reluctance to bow to Israel’s demands has pleased Washington foreignpolicy experts, but stands as a striking slap in the face to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has called the deal a “historic mistake.”
Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, recently tweeted that “Congress is finally becoming embarrassed by Netanyahu’s efforts to dictate U.S. policy.”
He later added in a second tweet: “Historical accords with Iran: Winners: (U.S. Secretary of State John) Kerry, (Iran President Hassan) Rouhani and common sense. Losers: regional war mongers.”
Robert Einhorn, a former special adviser for non-proliferation and arms control to the U.S. State Department, applauded the deal because it is designed “to stop the clock on Iran’s nuclear program.”
“The program could advance substantially in the coming months,” he told a large, standing-room-only audience this week at the Institute for International and Strategic Studies. “This deal very comprehensively and for six months puts a cap on that program.”
Brzezinski said: “The alternative of course in the absence of the deal probably would have been some sort of military collision which in a short sort of sense we would probably initially win but would probably plunge us into amuchmoreprolonged,much wider regional conflict.”
U.S. President Barack Obama has said he believes the deal has a 50-50 chance of success.
“Even as I don’t take any options off the table, what we do have to test is the possibility that we can resolve this issue diplomatically,” he said last week.
The election this year of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who so far appears far more conciliatory and moderate than his predecessor, has opened the door to a resolution of the nuclear problem and potentially to a less bellicose and more trust- worthy Iran.
The differences, however, remain significant. The U.S. envisions Iran with a small, easily verifiable enrichment program that will supply fuel for limited electricity production and medical use. Iran is talking about building a number of reactors for more substantial electrical production. Israel and Saudi Arabia want the world powers to force Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program immediately and surrender its centrifuges under the threat of military attack.
Brzezinski warned that the U.S. and its allies have to be careful not to drive Iran back into isolation with demands that humiliate Iranians.
“So we have to be careful not to slide into the position in which an accommodation, for a majority of Iranians, begins to look like a one-sided capitulation,” he said.
What is at stake here?
Israel believes, quite rightly, that it would be the main target of a nuclear Iran. After all, the country’s previous president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, directly threatened Israel with annihilation. Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabis leaders regard Shia Iran as heretics, join with Israel in insisting Iran abandon its entire nuclear enrichment program. Were Iran, a country that supports terrorism, to go nuclear, it could join unstable Pakistan in becoming an international nuclear threat. Brzezinski said Pakistan is working to extend the firing range of its substantial nuclear stockpile.
Who are the main deal makers?
Negotiations have been ongoing between the so-called P5 plus 1 — Britain, China, France, Russia, the United States and Germany. The deal was primarily worked out during secret talks between the United States and Iran and then agreed to by the other members.
What would a final treaty look like?
A final agreement would outline the limits of Iran’s nuclear program as well as the rights of verification to assure it is not covertly building nuclear weapons.
How does this preliminary deal benefit Iran?
Iran has since 2006 suffered under increasingly heavy sanctions imposed against its petroleum and chemical industry as well as its banking system. This has largely stopped the flow of money into and out of Iran, crippling its international trade and creating significant hardships for its people. The agreement gives Iran $7 billion in relief over the next six months from a total sanction bill that some say is worth up to $100 billion. In other words, significant sanctions still apply.
What guarantees exist that Iran will not continue weapons development during the negotiations?
The deal requires that Iran freeze its program including the construction of nuclear facilities and the enrichment of uranium isotopes. It also assures that IAEA inspectors have full access to all of Iran’s facilities on a daily basis in order that violations can be quickly identified.
What steps can be taken if Iran violates the deal?
The UN can immediately reimpose the lifted sanctions and the U.S. Congress can levy even more severe sanctions within 24 hours.
Why not just keep applying the sanctions until Iran agrees to stop its nuclear program?
Sanctions have not stopped Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the program has accelerated. It is hoped that a deal will help coax Iran out of its current isolation to play a positive role in the international community. China and Japan want Iran’s steady supply of oil and gas. Europe and the U.S. want it to become an ally in the region and a trading partner. An Iran that is left destitute by sanctions is in nobody’s long-term interests.
Why not take military action?
Many military experts believe that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will not ultimately stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. An attack could also inflame regional tensions and lead to international conflict.
How far is Iran from building a nuclear weapon?
Even if Iran were only a few months away from having the enriched uranium to build a bomb, it would probably take years of testing to assure that the nuclear bomb actually works, that it can be delivered on target and that it has a significant retaliatory capability.