Skepticism is only the start
There’s no way not to be skeptical about the deal with Iran
to “freeze” its nuclear weapons program. Even aside from recent history and the
character of the people involved, the stakes are so high that any deal must be
viewed with deep skepticism.
Keeping nuclear weapons from the region is a worthwhile
goal. But even if this deal leads to an agreement to do that, the impact is
likely to be less clear cut than it seems.
First and most importantly, the present deal presents a
clear timeline for action by the West. If suitable disarmament is not achieved
in six months, then clearly the proper move by the West is to force that disarmament.
And sanctions aren’t going to do it; only an attack on Iran’s facilities will.
A real agreement to disband the program would include
abandonment of the nuclear weapons program and work on the delivery systems – no missiles capable of carrying
nuclear warheads should be allowed to exist in Iran. The country’s ongoing missile
program has always been a clear sign of its leaders’ true intentions to build
and deploy nuclear weapons; if it remains in place, there can be no doubt about
what it really is up to.
But what if Iran is sincere and does freeze or completely
disband its nuclear weapons program?
Iran will benefit simply by being able to sell its oil
openly, but the up side is far greater than that. To the extent that an
agreement leads to a rapprochement or even just an easing of relations with
Western nations and China – not the U.S. – it will have a major impact on the
current war between Shia and Sunni Islam.
The leaders of Iran have not only exported weapons and
fighters in that conflict but have proselytized for a Shia-dominated Islam and
Middle East; if Iran has more resources to use in that quest, it surely will. From
a long-term point of view, stopping the nuclear program now allows Iran to deal
with its immediate goals of dealing with the Sunnis. This is especially
important if the leaders have concluded that they cannot use nuclear weapons
against co-religionists, a belief that seems to be evident in many of their
pronouncements. (You'll have to ask them why that doesn’t extend to other Children of Abraham.)
None of that changes the equation for Israel, which surely
must see Iran as a constant threat, even without nukes. Allowing Iran to keep material that is only
a few stages away from a bomb may never be acceptable. But what of the store of knowledge and experience that might be tapped secretly to restart a program in the future? That has to be considered a threat as well. The problem is how to
neutralize that threat without weakening the nation in the long term. If a
single attack on a nuclear plant would have guaranteed success, it would have
been launched a long time ago.
Finally, as is already clear, any agreement will unsettle Iran’s
Sunni neighbors, Egypt and Saudi Arabia especially. Ironically, their natural
ally against Iran is . . . Israel, which
alone in the Middle East has a force strong enough to challenge it.
Iran's actual and verifiable abandonment of its nuclear weapons program would be a good thing. An agreement that stops short of that commitment is no agreement at all. But even if such a real deal to ban nukes completely is reached and fulfilled, it may
ironically be the precursor to more conflict in the region.
