This is not a final agreement on what to do about Iran's nuclear program. This is a temporary stop-work agreement that includes diluting the 20% uranium concentrations already achieved; no new centrifuges can be installed and all work at the plutonium reactor must stop; and, most important, it provides for daily, intrusive inspections by the U. N. agency.
It is not a definitive end point, but critics are reacting as though this is all we're going to achieve in further negotiations. By the way, the "we" is not just the U. S. The six nations who came to this agreement with Iran are the five members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Russia.
Here is what columnist Roger Cohen wrote in Tuesday's New York Times:
"This merely is a first step taken while those negotiations are ongoing. It was the best deal that could be had. Nothing, not even sustained Israeli bombardment, can reverse the nuclear know-how Iran possesses. The objective must be to ring-fence the acquired capability so its use can only be peaceful. . . .
"As Obama said, “Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program. . . .
"The strategic divergence between the United States and Israel is not merely tactical. . .
"The United States has acknowledged that any lasting accord must concede a limited enrichment program to Iran [for peaceful purposes] . . . . Israel, to the contrary, wants zero Iranian enrichment and Libyan-style nuclear dismantlement.
"The United States is prepared to conceive of an Islamic Republic fully reintegrated in the community of nations, with equal rights. That state of affairs is a very long way off. Iran will not swiftly shake off the suspicions its actions and (sometimes vile) words have aroused. Nor should it be allowed to. But Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation. . . .
"Diplomacy involves compromise; risk is inherent to it. Iran is to be tested. Nobody can know the outcome. Things may unravel but at least there is hope. . . ."
This is a much bigger moment that we realized at first. It is not just about Iran and its nuclear program. It is about shifting from a war mentality to a peace mentality, from military might to diplomacy. It is also about shifting power in the Middle East. Built into the agreement are clear safeguards and the requirement that, if Iran fails to meet the requirements, the agreement will be halted immediately. Israel will be no worse off than they are now.
Hawks in Congress, fearful people in Israel, and opportunistic politicians are focusing on the risks and the presumed naivite and weakness of our president. But supporters are seeing this as the fulfillment of Obama's promise in 2008 -- his willingness to talk to our enemies and to work for peace. As one NYT writer put it: until now, President Obama has had to focus on the military aspects of cleaning up what his predecessor left: ending two wars; now he can begin to work on his real agenda.
Paul Wolfowitz (a major architect of the Iraq war) was interviewed by Chris Hayes on MSNBC. Given that he thinks the Geneva agreement is a historic mistake, Hayes asked what he thought we should do instead. All Wolfowitz offered was the sanctions were working; we should just keep them up and even strengthen them. Chris got no answer to the question: "and what then?"
I would like to ask the critics: If the Iranians were really serious about this, how would it look different from how it looks now? Do you really expect them to unilaterally destroy their whole program with no assurance that they would get any economic relief for doing so?
As Cohen said, "This is the best deal that could be had." Not just from Iran but from Russia and China as well. Even if we tightened sanctions more and forced Iran to its knees to grovel for forgiveness, Russia and China would not go along with such a deal.
Ralph
No comments:
Post a Comment