Approve nuclear deal despite Iran’s mischief

Except for one very valid concern, most of the Republican objections to the Iran nuclear deal are without merit. 

Some Republicans say that this deal not only fails to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, but that it instead paves the way to a nuclear bomb.  This is simply whack-o.  At the very least, this deal ices Iran’s nuclear program for a minimum of 10 to 15 years, and this alone makes the deal worth doing because it achieves far more than what we have today. 

{mosads}Some Republicans say that Iran will cheat and build the bomb in secret.  Maybe, but the negotiators thought of this and created a rigorous inspection regime specifically designed to detect cheating.  Congress should kick the tires on it, but the international team of experts deems it sufficient, so this is strong evidence that it should be sufficient for us as well. 

Some Republicans say that the 10 to 15 years is not long enough.  Forever, obviously, would have been better, but a decade plus is still worthwhile.  At the end of the period we will be in at least the same position we are in today (probably better after years of inspections), but Iran’s nuclear program will have been sidelined for all those years.  And at that time we can always re-impose sanctions if Iran appears to be breaking for a bomb.  

The one concern that does have considerable merit, however, is that Iran may well use its newfound wealth from the lifting of the sanctions to fund troublesome military operations in the region. 

This is indeed a legitimate concern.  In fact, this may well be the main reason that Iran is entering into this deal in the first place.

The Middle East right now is in a state of instability, unrest, and uncertainty, and power in the region is up for grabs.  Iran seems to view this situation as the great game of the next decade, and sees this as an historic opportunity to grab power and territory for itself.  Iran is likely eyeing some prime real estate in Iraq, and also seeking to assert influence and control in places like Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. 

Iran seems to be making the strategic calculation that it is well worth the bargain of giving up its nuclear pursuits for 10 to 15 years in favor of the more immediate goal of seizing more power and control in the region for itself.  To do so, Iran needs more money in order to finance military initiatives, and this is the reason lifting the sanctions is so critically important to Iran at this particular moment in time.   

In light of this concern, some are saying that Congress should reject the deal in order to keep the sanctions in place against Iran.  While keeping sanctions in place may sound like a good idea, in practice it is not so easy to accomplish.  

The main problem is that there is no justification for keeping the sanctions in effect.  The entire reason for the sanctions in the first place was as a response to Iran’s refusal to allow nuclear transparency.  So now that Iran is in fact allowing nuclear transparency, there is no justification for continuing the sanctions.  To do so would be something of a bait-and-switch. 

The second problem is that it is probably not even possible to keep the sanctions in place.  A number of countries in the international coalition are desperately champing at the bit to do business with Iran and had only reluctantly agreed to impose sanctions for the specific reason of Iran’s lack of cooperation on nuclear transparency.  But now that Iran is willing to cooperate on nuclear transparency, these various nations are no longer willing to continue the sanctions and would likely fall out of the coalition on their own accord even without this new agreement.   

So if the sanctions will likely melt away anyway, we might as well enter into this agreement now to obtain as much benefit as we can from Iran. 

If Congress were to reject the deal now, the sanctions would likely dissolve on their own anyway and we would then be left with nothing in return.  This would be a worse situation than entering into the agreement now and obtaining all the benefits that the agreement provides. 

So it seems that taking the deal is the wiser choice.

But this still leaves the world beset with the distressing problem of an Iran suddenly flush with cash and potentially eager to spend it on fomenting trouble in the region.  This is true.  And this problem does indeed need to be addressed.  But the way to address this problem is not by tanking the nuclear deal with Iran, as that would not solve the problem anyway.  This is a separate problem that needs to be solved with separate solutions and new diplomacy. 

While entering into this nuclear deal with Iran is far from perfect, it nevertheless offers a potential for optimism.  First of all, it would delay Iran’s nuclear program for at least 10 to 15 years, and this alone is a significant achievement.  But also, by lifting the sanctions, Iran would begin to reintegrate into the world community and form business and other alliances.  Iran would then be incentivized against returning to its nuclear activity or engaging in egregious behavior in the region because such conduct would jeopardize these newfound alliances and threaten to once again marginalize Iran as a rogue state. 

Iran is an important nation with a great historic legacy to humanity, and also a nation that has suffered great exploitation at the hands of western nations, including by the United States.  Reintegrating Iran into the world community could offer Iran the potential to achieve far greater influence through participating in legitimate governance than through waging a military insurgency. 

The only way to know would be to offer Iran a fair chance to become a responsible nation.   

Entering into this nuclear agreement with Iran is a step in this direction.

Cain is a writer and commentator living in New York City.