Iran agreement depends on verification, not trust -- President Obama

The historic agreement between the G5+1 nations and Iran explained in broad terms (with thanks to the BBC):

1.  Every pathway to a nuclear weapon in Iran is cut off.
2.  Iran agrees, as spelled out twice in the agreement that:  "Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."

3.  We don't have to take their word for it.  The deal relies on verification, not trust.
4.  Two-thirds of centrifuges will be removed and stored under international supervision.
5.  Current stock of enriched uranium will be reduced by 98%.
6.  Sanctions will be lifted gradually as the program is implemented.
7.  Sanctions will be immediately restored if Iran violates the agreement.
8.  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have inspection access whenever necessary and wherever necessary.   An arms embargo will remain for five years and a missile embargo for eight years.

Iranians seem happy with the deal -- celebrating in the streets of Teheran.  Conservatives in the U. S. Congress and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are very unhappy.  Some use this discrepancy as evidence that Iran beat us at the negotiating game.

I would not read it that way.   Netanyahu would hate any deal that doesn't include bombing Iran;   many hawks in this country also would prefer a military (non)solution.   But chief negotiator for the U.S., Sec. of State John Kerry, says this deal actually makes Israel safer.

While Netanyahu's rhetoric is about fear of nuclear and terrorist attacks from Iran, it's more likely that the Israeli PM fears a shift in the Mideast balance of power.    Iran has always insisted that it's nuclear interests are for peaceful use of nuclear energy, not weapons.

At the same time, it has long been an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons but has never admitted it nor participated in any kind of inspection program nor signed any controlling treaties.     So why should not Iran aspire for the same thing for defensive purposes?

Israel's argument of course is that their program is only defensive.   In other words, they're asking the world to "trust us" without any verification.   And, in general, we have -- because Israel has been seen mostly as a humanitarian, moral country.   That reputation has been tarnished in recent years, however, by its treatment of the Palestinians.

In contrast, Iran has agreed not only forego nuclear weapons but also submit to the most intrusive inspections ever of any country.   And still it's not enough for the hawks among us. 

This agreement is the culmination of intense diplomatic negotiations over 20 months.  Six nations (U.S., England, France, China, Russia, and Germany) have come together and worked out this agreement with Iran.   It is the strongest that could be gotten peacefully.  The only alternatives are (1) a nuclear Iran in the near future or (2) war.   Opponents have not offered any other proposals that could work.   Tougher sanctions or military strikes would only kill any chance for inspection and verification secured by this agreement, and Iran would race to make a bomb as soon as possible.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu calls the agreement a "stunning historic mistake" and says it will provide Iran with "hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe".

U. S. Congressmen's arguments make even less sense.   House Speaker John Boehner warns that, "Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, this deal is likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world."    How does preventing Iran from making a bomb fuel an arms race?   Apparently Boehner, like Netanyahu, refuses to believe that it may be in Iran's interest to pursue peace and cooperation with the world -- nor do they believe that the G5+1 negotiators know what they're doing.

Congress will now have 60 days in which to "consider" this agreement.   As I understand it, the agreement does not require congressional ratification;  but they could adopt a resolution opposing it or defunding it.   President Obama will veto such legislation, and it's unlikely that opponents could get a 2/3 override vote in both houses.

No one quite knows at this point how this will change the dynamics of the Middle East.   Iran will become more of an economic force, which could be good for trade;   but its neighbors, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, fear that Iran will attempt to dominate them.   There is also the worry that this will inflame further the sectarian discord between Sunni and Shiia factions.

There is also the prospect of benefits from the fact that Iran and the U.S. have learned that they can work together.   Iran is already helping in the fight against the Sunni-led ISIS;  this will likely lead to closer cooperation in defeating ISIS.

Another possible benefit could be a strengthening of the more moderate influence in Iran politically, as well as the people's demand for less restrictive government control over their lives. 

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the deal "not perfect for anybody'', but he also agreed that it is the "best achievement possible that could be reached".

So, I say again:    Let's give peace a chance.

Ralph