AGREEMENT WITH IRAN IS
A TRIUMPH OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY
By Dr. Tyrus W. Cobb,
Former Special Assistant to President Reagan and
Founder, the National Security Forum
The accord reached between Iran and the “P5+1” is a triumph of American diplomacy and steadfastness. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons for at least the next 10-15 years. The agreement includes provisions for intrusive verification never seen before; it requires the dismantling of Iran’s capability to develop nuclear weapons in a short period of time; and it continues severe restrictions on transfers of missiles and weapons for another 10 years. The successful conclusion of the agreement required maintaining unity not only between the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany), but insuring that Russia, China and other major powers adhered to the tough economic and missile transfer sanctions imposed on Iran.
Here are the key provisions:
- In return for a phased lifting of economic sanctions, Iran will reduce by 98% its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, a fraction of what would be needed to make a bomb. The stockpile is all but eliminated.
- It will reduce the number of operating centrifuges used to enrich fuel by two-thirds, to 5,060;
- Iran agrees to constant and technologically advanced monitoring by the IAEA indefinitely. Inspectors will have access to sites “when necessary, where necessary”.
In short, the agreement accomplishes what no amount of political grandstanding and threats of military action could do. Despite rising tensions between the U.S. and other partners in the agreement, especially Russia and China, the coalition stayed cohesive and withstood attractive overtures from Tehran to break away. The accord makes the Middle East less dangerous by forestalling proliferation
The agreement will provide economic benefits to all parties, most importantly Iran, which will now be able to export oil and gas to the world market. That could mean a $100 billion windfall for Iran. At the same time analysts believe that the surge of Iranian oil exports will be a major boon to Western economies, particularly to the U.S., and the American consumer, who will likely see gasoline prices drop below $2 a gallon. Not incidentally, that spells more bad news for Russia, which depends on oil and gas revenues for as much as 2/3 of its state budget!
A chorus of criticism of the agreement has been heard loud and clear, led by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who calls the accord a “historic mistake”. Virtually all leading Republicans, in Congress and candidates for President, have also condemned the agreement. They often point to Iran’s support of international terrorism, including Hezbollah, in Lebanon. And they are right—Iran is a leading backer of groups inimical to our interests, including the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah and even Hamas. They also note that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, derides the U.S. as the “Great Satan”, its implacable enemy. And they are right. Critics highlight Iran’s repeated violations of human rights domestically. And they are also correct here.
President Ronald Reagan faced the same challenge in reaching arms accords with the former Soviet Union. Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire”, and he was right. He said that Soviet leaders had maintained that they could lie and cheat to accomplish their Communist objectives. Right again. And he charged Moscow with providing support for worldwide revolutionary movements, particularly in Africa and Central America, designed to destabilize the regions or overthrow governments allied with the U.S. Correct.
But that didn’t stop Reagan from pursuing historic arms agreements with the Soviets, including the INF Treaty that removed Soviet missiles deployed already in Europe, and the START negotiations that eventually greatly reduced the ballistic missile inventories both the U.S. and the USSR held.
In the next two months, Congress will review the agreement, where it will likely be defeated. All Republicans and many Democrats will probably oppose the accord, particularly in states with large Jewish populations. President Obama will veto the resolution and the agreement will go into effect.
Frankly, for many in opposition, this is exactly what they want to happen. They get to go on record as opposed, but they won’t have to bear the ramifications if the agreement was actually scuttled.
What are those ramifications? First, the coalition partners which the U.S. has held together tenuously will not support the reimposition of sanctions and certainly not any military action. The United States will be left alone as our European allies, Russia and China move quickly to reestablish trading relations with Tehran. The result will be a surge of revenues for the Iranian economy, enhanced arms sales from Russia and China to Tehran, isolation of the U.S. in imposing restrictions on Iran, economic or military, and the lost chance of promoting domestic change in Iran. This is a young country, with a highly literate and technologically capable populace, who would benefit from increased global engagement, but who would likely stand by the regime if the agreement falters because of U.S. opposition.
Finally, critics who actually hope the accord fails, perhaps by securing a 2/3 supermajority in Congress to defeat the agreement, need to explain what happens next. We have already noted that the sanctions regime will disappear, and that leaves military action. Indeed, the chance of war is actually heightened in the region if the accord fails. Some critics in Congress as well as in the Israeli leadership have advocated that the U.S. attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. That is impossible to do—the programs could be set back for a short period of time only. And then what? Another war in the Middle East? Against the most populous and technologically advanced power in the region? Seriously?
The critics have offered us no credible alternative to the agreement. It deserves our support!
- Tyrus W. Cobb, July 17, 2015
////////////
Bad Assumptions Breed Horrific Results
by Allan Myer, Chairman of the Board, The Israel Project and
former NSC Director of Defense Programs and Presidential Speechwriter during Reagan Administration
The deal is in. One hundred and fifty nine pages of jargon, rules, lists, and fine print. They’re dancing in the streets of Tehran. Not so in Washington. Inside the Beltway, politicians and pundits are taking verbal jabs at each other. Debate is raging. What gives?
Good deal or bad deal? Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah declared that Iran will be able to use its billions in sanctions relief “to stand by its allies and friends…more than in any time in the past.” Syria’s Assad took it further saying Iran would boost its efforts to back “just causes.” On the other hand, Secretary Kerry says, Iran “will be subject to extraordinary restraints,” and President Obama declared, “Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East.”
Perhaps the underlying reason for this glaring disparity can be found in a phrase that often afflicts strategic thinkers and political decision makers: We don’t believe the world we see; we see the world we believe. The Obama Administration has pursued a nuclear deal on a belief system and a series of false assumptions that don’t match up to the world as it is. The result is a bad deal for the West and a very good deal for Iran.
Assumptions always play a huge part in the way decisions are made. Failure to address, understand, and heed the truth or fallacy of underlying assumptions provide the best forecast of whether the outcome will or will not be successful. That’s the rub. When it comes to the outcome of this deal, the underlying assumptions made by the Obama administration forecast a national security disaster. Here are four of them:
Assumption number one: Iran will be and should be a stabilizing regional power in the Middle East. Really? Iran remains a leading cause of ongoing wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. It is propping up the Assad regime, consolidating its conquest of non-Kurdish Iraq, arming Hezbollah with ever more lethal arms and missiles, and issuing never-ending threats to destroy Israel. The Iranians have built and support a huge terror network deep into the Middle East and beyond.
Under the terms of the deal, Iran will quickly receive a sanctions relief package including a $150 billion windfall within several months. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the group running Iran’s operations in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, and responsible for funding terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, has a budget of about $6.5 billion a year. Even if only 10 percent of the relief package is put into these operations, their budget would triple. So much for stabilization.
Assumption number two: Iran can be expected to abide by the terms of the deal. The Obama Administration repeatedly has made the point that it doesn’t trust Iran and the deal isn’t based on trust. One can argue whether or not, the deal is in fact based on trust, but that’s not the point. The important point is about expectations. Regardless of what is being negotiated and who might be sitting at the table, whether it’s about real estate, international commerce, or arms control, each side sits down expecting that once a deal is made, the other side intends to honor it. Otherwise, why sit down in the first place?
In the strategic arms negotiations with the Soviet Union, the United State expected the Soviet Union would see it in their own national interest to abide by a deal that lessened the chance of a thermonuclear war. History proves the assumption was valid.
Should we have a parallel expectation when it comes to Iran? Should we assume Iran sees it is in its own national security interest not to develop and build a nuclear weapons capability? Is this assumption valid? How does that match up with Iran’s nuclear weapons development efforts for more than a decade? Would any reasonable observer come to any conclusion other than “not at all.”
Assumptions number three and four are interrelated: The inspection regime contained in the agreement will ensure effective and rapid detection of any cheating, and the punishment provisions will be of such immediate magnitude to keep Iran from cheating. We know Iran cheats. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, has reported that Iran has violated United Nations resolutions as recently as last month. So the question is whether the deal can catch their cheating effectively and rapidly. U.S. negotiators originally sought “anywhere, anytime” unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Transparency. That’s gone. The deal calls for “managed” access, a process that gives Iran up to 24 days to hide any evidence of cheating. And what are the consequences of any cheating? Only one international reaction – taking Iran to the UN Security Council for the “snap back” reimposition of sanctions; a penalty that would kill the deal. That’s like saying that the punishment of any infraction, whether it be a trifling misdemeanor or a murder one felony is the death penalty. The fine print stipulates that there can be no other penalty. It’s all or nothing. Where is the logic in that?
Building on a foundation of false assumptions in exchange for a lukewarm commitment from Iran, the West is giving Iran $150 billion to do with as they wish while allowing their nuclear infrastructure to remain intact; permitting continued research on advanced centrifuges; lifting the bans on its weapons imports and ballistic missile programs; and giving a significant boost to the legitimacy of the Iranian regime. Unless rejected by Congress, the prospect is for Iran to become a nuclear-armed and ever more dangerous regional power in the Middle East.
Bad assumptions breed horrific results.
- Allan A. Myer, July 17, 2015
(Note: Allan and Ty served together in the Reagan NSC and both were Army Colonels with a specialization on Soviet affairs. Al currently lives in Connecticut; Ty in Reno)