The debate on the interim nuclear deal continues—indeed, it approaches avalanche. While the majority of the analytical community appears to be giving the deal at least a conditional thumbs up considering the alternatives, a number of contrary voices have continued to advance relevant considerations. This is our selection of the best for and against the interim agreement.
Thumbs up or thumbs down?
Best analyses for thumbs up:
- Dennis Ross and James Jeffrey support the deal, but argue that concerns from U.S. allies in the region, however misguided, can and should be addressed. Both authors suggest steps Washington should take to mend fences with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others and therefore strengthen its bargaining position for the tough negotiations ahead with Iran.
- Enthusiasts preemptively inflate the deal as a “historic” opening in U.S.-Iran relations, while critics note that the agreement fails to permanently roll back Iran’s nuclear program. Kenneth Pollack at Foreign Affairs steps back and asks: what was the interim deal actually intended to do? He provides a different yardstick: the deal should be understood as a confidence-building measure that cuts through some of the mistrust between the U.S. and Iran. At that, he notes, the deal succeeded.
- Bob Einhorn’s piece in Haaretz sheds light on the benefits of the interim deal and takes Prime Minister Netanyahu to task for his notorious bomb cartoon at the UN last year, which included a redline at Iran’s acquiring one bomb’s worth of 20% enriched uranium in gaseous form. Under this agreement, Einhorn notes, the stockpile of this material “will roll back to zero,” so Netanyahu should be celebrating.
- Our colleague Matt Bunn breaks down the widely-held presumption that Iran is a unitary actor in the Christian Science Monitor. He argues that the interim deal—which could produce real, tangible economic benefits for Iranians—will make it “extraordinarily difficult for Tehran’s bomb advocates to make the case that now was the time to abandon the path of compromise and go for a nuclear bomb.”
Best analyses for thumbs down:
- Former Israeli National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror catalogues Israeli objections to the deal in the New York Times. Among them, he criticizes the P5+1 for gambling away its sanctions leverage on the basis of Iranian “goodwill.”
- In the Los Angeles Times, Max Boot reminds observers that, notwithstanding the nuclear deal, Iran continues to feed hostilities in the region and disregard human rights at home. Citing Khamenei’s reference to Israel as a “rabid dog,” Boot notes that the Obama administration prefers dismissing Iran’s rhetoric as only “uncomfortable”—even as “the rhetoric of leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao has often proved an accurate guide to their actions.” Put another way, Anthony Cordesman argues that an arms control deal without a broader resolution of political differences puts the cart before the horse.
- Michael Doran and James Glassman contend that the Obama administration settled too soon – if it had waited it a little longer, as the sanctions continued to bite, they may have gotten a better deal. Now that a deal has been reached, we may never know whether Doran and Glassman are right.
