The Case for a Deal with Iran
The P5+1 are currently in negotiations with Iran over a potential deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The premise of any such deal would be for the world to ease sanctions on Iran in return for Iran not developing a nuclear bomb. Some officials, such as Senator Tom Cotton and the 46 other senators who signed his letter to Iran vehemently oppose such a deal. Others, such as, Secretary of State Kerry have worked tirelessly to achieve a diplomatic solution to the growing nuclear power of Iran. I believe that those in the Secretary of State’s camp are correct in attempting to achieve such a deal. This is because this deal will effect only nuclear-related sanctions, allow for greater access into Iran’s nuclear program during inspections, our mutual interests with Iran, and the consequences of not reaching a deal.
First, the P5+1 are not negotiating all sanctions against Iran, only those in relation to their enrichment program. There will still be sanctions against Iran regarding human rights violations and state sponsor of terrorism. The P5+1 are by no means condoning any of the many violations of human rights and terror committed by the Iranian regime. This distinction is important because the Iranians will still feel the effects of other sanctions placed on them. If anything, the fact that Iranians have come to the negotiating table show the power such sanctions can have.
Also, let us not pretend that this is the Iran of decades ago. Society there has evolved. The country is no longer a revolutionary republic. The younger generation born after the revolution is very modern. Iran has a large growing literate urban population. Additionally, their Human development Index rating is comparable to Turkey. Furthermore, the majority of students in universities are women. Women even have served in the Iranian parliament. Though the Internet is censored, it is reportedly very easy to get around the censors. People there are not as worried as they once were about speaking up against the government and saying what they believe, and the Internet is furthering this. It is important that instead we are able to continue the modernization of Iran’s growing urban middle class, and allow them to become more “western.”
Iran is the 19th most populous country in the world, and the second largest in the Middle East. It is a very important country in the region, and has influence or control of four of the Arab capitols of the region: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and possibly Sana’a. We cannot ignore Iran’s importance, and the best solution to solving our disputes with Iran is through diplomacy.
From what the media are reporting about intelligence gathering (this was stated in the deal), we know that Iran has not made a decision to make a weapon, but they do have the systems in place currently to create one in just two to three months if such a decision was made. Some might argue that it is already too late for negotiations, but they are misguided. Iran’s potential capability gives the negotiations urgency and relevance. This makes agreeing to a deal even more important. Such a deal, as what is known about it from the media, would create a break out time of one year at the very minimum. This would give the world powers a much longer time to react.
One of the most important aspects of a deal would be inspections. These would include verifiable limits, along with monitoring by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials. A deal will increase transparency as a whole to Iran’s enrichment program. It is believed that the deal will have sanctions lifted, as Iran first complies with the deal and progress is made. Additionally, all U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will “snap back into place” if Iran fails any of its commitments. The deal even features a dispute resolution process, where if the issue is not resolved all UN sanctions will go back into effect. All of this is important in building trust with Iran, something that will take a while to build after decades of distrust. The path towards this has already started, as IAEA inspectors have found that Iran has been in complete compliance with everything that was agreed upon in the January 2014 deal that set the groundwork for the current negotiations. The most important part of the deal might be these inspections. They would provide extraordinary access into all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would include access to uranium mines and mills for 25 years. Additionally, it would provide access to Iran’s centrifuge workshops for 20 years, where it will be frozen and continually put under surveillance. This is important because it will allow officials to see if any centrifuges are being made, so that Iran will not be able to start a secret nuclear facility. Previous nuclear sites were secret, such as Lavizan, Natanz, and Fordow. Fortunately our intelligence community was able to uncover these sites, but with access to the centrifuge workshops inspectors would more likely to find out were the centrifuges are going.
Another point that is commonly misunderstood is the back-and-forth debate over centrifuges. The centrifuges that the Iranians currently possess are not very effective. They are 1970s technology, decades behind modern technology. It is not the number of centrifuges that they are able to keep that matters, but making sure that they are unable to improve and update their centrifuges, which the IAEA would be able to monitor. Under the deal Iran will have to remove the 1,000 IR-2 centrifuges that are slightly more advanced. They will also not be allowed to use IR-2, 4, 5, 6, or 8 models that are more advanced for 10 years. Related to that, many people are worried that a deal would allow for Iran to keep their low-enriched uranium. If the Iranians are allowed to keep this uranium, it would be in casks regularly checked by officials, so the officials would find out quickly if Iran tried to further enrich that uranium. Furthermore, Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67% for another 15 years, the requirement for a bomb is 90%.
Many are worried that Iran will never actually agree to a deal, or that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei will veto a deal after negotiations are complete. This is a misconception. Both Iranian President Rouhani and Ayatollah Khamenei support a deal. The Ayatollah even gave a speech saying that all Iranians should support a deal, regardless of who they voted for. President Rouhani campaigned on improving the economy, and a key part of restoring the economy is removing sanctions. They believe that it is in their best interest to make a deal because of economic relief it will give them, and they are correct. Making a deal will also help the country come out from the isolation it has been under from the world, which they believe will help them spread their messages to the world. Lastly, no matter how the deal works, they will be able to declare it a success to their people, increasing their popularity.
In addition, just because we will have agreed to a deal with Iran does not mean that we will suddenly become partners with them. It is important that we solve our problems through diplomacy, and that requires listening and compromising with the enemy. We do have common interests with Iran. There are the common enemies of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIL in Iraq and Syria. Iran has been an important player in fighting ISIL, as they have backed strong Shi’a militias, sent fighter planes, and its elite Quds force under General Qasem Soleimani. With common ground it is important that we are able to communicate with them.
There are serious consequences of not reaching a deal. Iran is dangerously close to building a weapon, and if they have one, other players in the region may start their own nuclear programs to keep up. In addition if Iran does succeed in creating a weapon we will be left with two options: negotiating with less leverage, or using military force. The latter is particularly concerning because it would lead to never-ending war. Even if we are able to successfully bomb their facilities, which is not as easy as it sounds because many facilities are underground and protected by layers of concrete, we would have to keep doing so even as they may build new ones. We cannot take away the information they have learned, and so they will always be a threat. There are also some who believe we should continue to wait and try and achieve an even better deal. I believe that the time is now, as Iran is weak from the sanctions that have been placed upon it, and isolated from the international community. Waiting will only make Iran more likely to attempt to breakout and develop weapons.