Flip the script on U.S. relations with Iran

Next Tuesday is not just Election Day. It is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the start to the Iran Hostage Crisis, an event that still casts a long shadow on U.S. relations with Iran today. However, U.S. negotiators in Vienna are working around the clock to test the hypothesis that Iran is willing to chart a new course, with the first big step being the closing off of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb.

The bold approach to re-imagine a new relationship with Iran has its fair share of critics. But the same voices that criticized President Obama as “naive” in daring to engage with Iran also blasted the interim agreement last November as on par with Neville Chamberlain’s  “appeasement” of Hitler. The president’s naysayers are still defiantly unmoved even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Iran faithfully executed its terms of the interim deal. Fortunately, not even knee-jerk opponents of diplomacy can hold a nuclear breakthrough hostage to maximalist demands.

{mosads}Recent press reports appear to show both sides are on the brink of a historic achievement—a deal that would lock down Iran’s nuclear program and put it under strict inspections. This is remarkable on multiple levels. 

First, United States negotiators have regularly met with their Iranian counterparts over the past year. This was inconceivable for the thirty-years before Obama called Iranian President, Hasan Rouhani, last year. Not only is Iran engaged in good-faith negotiations on the core issue of its nuclear program, these bilateral exchanges have also built a platform where the U.S. and Iran can talk about other areas on other common interest – including countering the Islamic State and stabilizing Afghanistan.

Second, closing Iran’s nuclear dossier would serve as a shot in the arm for the global nonproliferation regime whose function is to stop the growth of states with nuclear weapons. An agreement would provide phased sanctions relief only after Iran meets specific nuclear milestones, preserving U.S. “carrots” to keep Iran in compliance for the long haul. Most importantly, observable progress in draining Iran of its bomb making material will help to avert a nightmarish scenario— where Iran’s neighbors hasten their own quest for a nuclear bomb, setting off an arms race in a region already bedeviled by sectarian conflict. A nuclear deal would greatly reduce the threat of Iran’s program and the future spread of nuclear weapons.  

Securing a deal with Iran would thus be a historic achievement. That a final deal would not require immediate up or down vote by Congress is a boon both to its supporters and those who are dubious of Iran’s true intentions. The structure of an executive-level agreement is a safeguard against partisan snipers in Congress in its vulnerable early months. And by freeing Congress of a vote to permanently “lift” sanctions, the United States will retain “sticks” to swiftly react if Iran violates its end of the deal. The high stakes game of nuclear diplomacy is too grave to leave a mercy of political trade-winds.

But even the best agreements are only as good if they are implemented. For that, the Congress is going to have to play a constructive role. Congress has the authority to hold President Obama and the next Administration’s foot to the fire should Iran break the agreement. Spotty implementation from Iran will justifiably prompt Congress to dial up the pressure in the form of tightening existing sanctions or imposing new ones. 

After all, it was the sanctions regime that coerced Iran to the negotiating table in the first place; therefore, Congress should reject calls for creating an litmus test for what a deal must contain. Doing so would squander our chance at a lasting peace that bipartisan Members of Congress fought so hard to secure.

With an eleven-year war in Iraq still raging, the U.S. should embrace this diplomatic opening that achieves our ultimate objective through the tip of a pen, rather than a spear.

Narendra is the Roger L. Hale Fellow at the Ploughshares Fund. He previously served as a contractor for the U.S. Air Force and at the National Nuclear Security Administration.