The President Has His Deal With Iran

Today it is anticipated that President Obama and the Iranian leadership will announce a deal on Iran’s nuclear program:

VIENNA — An historic agreement Tuesday to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief will ensure Iran has no possibility to achieve rapid nuclear weapons “breakout” capabilities for at least the next decade, diplomats said.

“We have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region,” said President Obama, noting some of the pillars of the deal including international inspections, reductions in Iran’s centrifuges used to make nuclear fuel and a sharp cut in Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material.

“We put sanctions in place to get a diplomatic solution, and that is what we have done . . . This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. We should seize it,” said Obama, noting the review ahead in Congress.

and

A senior Iranian official, speaking to Western reporters on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would be submitted to the U.N. Security Council within a week to 10 days, and then be incorporated into a new Council resolution that eventually will lift sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.

Leslie Gelb observes:

The worrisome provisions pertain to the lifting of sanctions. Counter to Tehran’s wishes, they won’t be lifted all at once or all soon. A big chunk will be removed soon after the agreement is formally approved, but then, the bulk of the sanctions by the U.S. and others will come off over the course of years. Some might not be lifted by the U.S. Congress for many, many years.

A legitimate worry is that Iran will cheat or otherwise not live up to the agreement’s obligations, and that the sanctioning parties will let them get away with it. Indeed, China and Russia could look the other way and probably will. It’s also probable that the other signatories — Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union—won’t be tough in their responses to violations.

These concerns give real weight to the argument that this agreement in its execution could allow Tehran to have its nuclear capacity and a much stronger economy as well.

That an agreement will be reached should surprise exactly no one. Each side was clearly desperate for a deal, each for its own reasons. My own view has been and continues to be that the deal is irrelevant or, at least, enormously overblown. It all depends on whether you think that Iran has an active nuclear weapons development program.

If you don’t think that the Iranians have an active nuclear weapons development program, that means that they are as good as their word and we have nothing to worry about and haven’t for well over a decade. If you think that the Iranians have an active nuclear weapons development program, it means they’ve been lying all along and can’t be trusted including on this new deal. In either event this latest deal is, at the very least, greatly exaggerated in its importance. We’ll know in the fullness of time.

Meanwhile, kudos to the president. He’s got his deal with Iran. I genuinely hope it’s a deal worth having.

11 comments… add one
  • ... Link

    … will ensure Iran has no possibility to achieve rapid nuclear weapons “breakout” capabilities for at least the next decade….

    And what if the Iranians simply seek slow steady progress, as opposed to a “breakout”? The ayatollahs don’t strike me as a particularly impatient lot, unlike American politicians.

  • TastyBits Link

    I agree with your assessment. I will add that with Iraq gone there is a much less urgent need for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. I also believe that they only need everybody to believe they have a nuclear weapon, and it could be in their interest to make their neighbors think they are cheating.

    In the larger picture, the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia are ripe for a major war. There is still the India-Pakistan tinder box ready to go up at any time. In the ME, ISIS is the wild card. They could side with Iran to get at Saudi Arabia, but I do not see the US on the same side as ISIS. This assumes they still exist when the larger conflict starts.

    President Obama is going to be compared to Chamberlain. He will be blamed for not having stopped Iran from starting the inevitable ME confrontation, but there is nothing he could have done. This was coming long before the US invaded Iraq, and nobody was going to stop it without killing a lot of people.

    If the Iranians want a nuclear weapon, they will get one. Sanctions only work on people who think sanctions work on people. Apparently, Russia, North Korea, and Cuba have not gotten the memo about sanctions working.

    The deal will only be worth having as long as there is no major conflict involving Iran. I do not see it. He will be blamed. It will be unfair, but if you want to run with the big dogs, history is not always fair.

  • I will add that with Iraq gone there is a much less urgent need for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    It’s funny you should mention that since I had planned to work into the post the possibility that invading Iraq was a fiendishly clever plot to convince the Iranians that they didn’t need to build a nuclear weapon.

    I decided against it since it really wasn’t germane to the point I was making in the post.

  • ... Link

    They could side with Iran to get at Saudi Arabia, but I do not see the US on the same side as ISIS.

    We’re already on the side of ISIS in Syria. Of course, we’re against them in Iraq, and there we side with Iran. I’m not sure if we’re opposed to or supporting ISIS in Libya & Egypt. I don’t think the people running the US know either.

  • jan Link

    Sanctions only work on people who think sanctions work on people.

    Maybe the “working” part of sanctions depends upon one’s expectations of them. Limiting money and investment opportunity can slow down a country’s ability to implement a country’s reckless desires. That’s the purpose I see of sanctions being imposed on Iran — slowing down the inevitability of achieving the nuclear capability they seek.

    Now that they will have access to $100 billion in frozen assets, as well as the capability to sell their own oil, it will, IMO, feed and facilitate their goals, speeding up ambitions to be a more potently dangerous ME power. It will also put the pedal to the metal for other ME countries to accelerate their own nuclear capabilities, mushrooming the possibility of a war with WMDs in this increasingly destabilized region.

    As for the U.S.’s part in brokering this deal, I see it as being a “done-deal” a long time ago — so desperate was the Administration (Obama/Kerry) in getting any kind of agreement with Iran that they could then bookmark in personal legacy columns. Consequently, it became a process of staying at the table long enough to satisfy Iran’s demands, while we caved on our own.

    Therefore, it was a matter of yielding a lot to former set-in-stone requirements. For instance, the “anytime-anywhere” inspections stances were replaced by “provisional” ones, in which Iran even has a say to which sites are to be inspected. This joke of an agreement is compounded by subtle suggestions that Iran’s budding Nuclear program has taken pointers from Israel’s initial nuclear weapons program, where half of it was kept secret. Other supposed deal-breakers, included in today’s lauded agreement, was the lifting of the UN arms embargo in 5 years, as well as the one on ballistic missile construction, now set to expire in 8 years. Such missiles could carry nuclear payloads to the U.S.! But, by that time Obama will be long gone, and the Iranian problem will be on someone else’s plate, along with all his other rearrangements of domestic/foreign policy we have been left with to muddle through once he is out of office.

  • TastyBits Link

    @jan

    North Korea developed a nuclear weapons program just fine under sanctions, and all the experts have been assuring us that Iran was doing so as well. In fact, I have been informed for 10 years that Iran is 6 mos away from having a nuclear weapon. (To be honest, the experts change their story so often it is hard to keep up with them, and I used the worst case.)

    The US was forced to invade Iraq because sanctions were not working, and more importantly, according to the same experts, they could never work. We were assured that Saddam would give/sell/rent WMD to terrorists. These were experts, and they knew what they were talking about.

    Today, the experts have decided that the sanctions are working just fine, but one day, they will wake up and decide the sanctions are not working just fine. On that day, it will be time for military action. The only difference between the two assessments will have been a clock tower’s bells ringing twelve times. Apparently, midnight really is magical.

    Bad guys are like winners, they are not deterred by any obstacles placed in their path. They go over, under, around, or through any obstacles, and if that does not work, they change the rules of the game.

  • jan Link

    Today, the experts have decided that the sanctions are working just fine …

    Tasty, I haven’t heard anyone saying sanctions are working “fine,” merely that they are negatively effecting the Iranian economy. While it’s not stopping their nuclear advancement, it does take a toll on other aspects of the country, giving the powers that be something to worry about regarding the contentment of their own citizenry. Also while economic sanctions do limit economic growth, they also may put a pothole or two in Iran’s path to easily fund and foment the various terrorist organizations they are alleged to have backed in the region.

    I do understand there’s no great overriding solution to the ME problems. However, I don’t see where this deal will ease ME tension or reduce the aspect of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. In fact, many are saying it will serve to first legitimize and then heighten Iran’s presence as a menacing ME power, it will give China a greater opportunity to buy needed oil and Russia to conveniently supply arms, as it lights a fire under other nervous ME neighbors to openly engage in a nuclear arms race.

    So, who, what, where is the benefit of this deal to the United States? The fact that we gave into so many “non-negotiable” issues, such as unfettered inspections, the lifting of the UN arms embargo followed by giving in to their ballistic missile program is simply mind boggling and “stupid,” IMO.

    I totally agree with you, though, that “bad guys” are winners, as they have a different take on applying a moral compass to their words and deeds, doing whatever is needed to get what they want.

  • Guarneri Link

    “Bad guys are like winners, they are not deterred by any obstacles placed in their path. They go over, under, around, or through any obstacles, and if that does not work, they change the rules of the game.”

    True. It doesn’t mean you give up. You never give up. Especially for the most transparent of political reasons.

  • TastyBits Link

    @jan

    I would suggest you ask the Iraqis who stood up and tried to overthrow Saddam Hussein at the urging of President Bush the Elder. They are mostly dead, and the lucky ones died quickly. If the Iranians have any sense, they will not hold their breath waiting for the US to help them overthrow their government.

    If you do not trust the existing Iranian government, there is no deal that will convince you they are not cheating. Even if they are not cheating, it may be in their best interest to make their neighbors think they are cheating, and if so, there is no way you will be able to find the non-existent “hidden” sites where the violations are occurring.

    The only way to stop then will be to physically destroy the phantom sites, but you can never destroy what never existed. Eventually, you will want to go on to the next step.

    This deal does nothing to alter the calculus in the region, and President Obama will be blamed when a major war breaks out in the region. He wanted the job, and it has consequences – ask George Bush.

    As I have said, President Obama’s foreign policy outlook is childish and silly. He really believes that the world is beyond conflicts and that anything can be worked out with enough diplomacy. I hate to be the turd in the punch bowl, but there will always be wars.

    Civilizations rise and fall, and they can do so with astonishing speed. I doubt the world will look the same in 2,000 years, but men will still be killing one another. Humans tend to project their conditions into the future, unchanging, or they will project worsening conditions in the future.

    Some people have put forth the formulation that, “it is better to kill them over there than over here.” Would it not be better to “let them kill each other over there than kill us over here?” If “an armed society is a polite society”, it would seem “a nuclear armed world is a polite world.” I am sure I have missed something. It usually happens when I mistake slogans for concepts.

    Islam is having an internal disagreement, and they need to sort it out. Presently, there is a three way split – Shia vs. Sunni, Sunni vs. fundamental Sunni, and fundamental Sunni vs. Shia. One of these is going to be eliminated before the final round gets started. Israel will wind up on whatever side is weakest, and that will most likely be the Sunni. (US/UK & USSR vs Germany)

    The US has time to build and install a missile defense system, but if, like cybersecurity, the US decides to bury its head in the sand, it would be better to be nuked – “thin out the herd”.

  • steve Link

    Just let me correct TB a bit. In the mid-90s when they started predicting that Iran was 5 years away from having a nuke, they meaning Israel and the pro-Israeli Americans (neocons, any politician from NY or Florida, etc.). Most recently, the predictions were that Iran was 3 months away from having enough nuclear material to build a bomb.

    If that is really believed, then I don’t see how having this deal makes it more like we have a nuclear arms race. If the Saudis and Turks want an arm race, they should want it even more if Iran is not being inspected. That argument makes so little sense I can’t believe it i made. However, I can believe that the real intention of sanctions has nothing to do with nukes, as jan makes clear. The agreement should decrease the risks of more nukes in the area, but Iran could use more money to buy more weapons, pay more troops. Make the area even more chaotic? Meh. I guess things can always be worse, but I doubt you get the countries involved to agree to sanctions over this. What would be the pretext? Why wouldn’t you place sanctions on Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Coast countries for financing ISIS?

    “so desperate was the Administration (Obama/Kerry) in getting any kind of agreement”

    I know you have to believe this kind of drivel since it is a talking point for your team, but this was not a bilateral agreement. I am pretty sure that China, Russia and Germany don’t care about the Obama legacy.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    I know you have to believe this kind of drivel since it is a talking point for your team…

    My “team” is this country, Steve. What team are you on?

Leave a Comment