When the United States, Britain, Russia, China, Germany, France and Iran signed a multilateral agreement in July to slow Iran’s steady march toward developing a nuclear weapon, the group made history in a vexing and complicated saga with ancient roots, flamed by modern challenges.
In exchange for lifted economic sanctions and gradual access to conventional weapons – provided it behaves according to the deal’s provisions – Iran will reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent for 15 years, and surrender nearly a quarter of its centrifuges. An extensive inspection-and-monitoring program will keep Iran honest, ostensibly, for the next 25 years at least. The hope and thought is that Iran will abandon its nuclear-weapons ambitions so as to reopen the flow of capital into and out of the country, which has been isolated under crippling sanctions since 2010 and before. The concern is that those resources will be used to fund anti-Israel groups in the region. The deal is a gamble, but there is no viable alternative.
President Barack Obama is alone among the leaders of the deal’s signatory countries in facing opposition from Congress sufficient to threaten torpedoing U.S. participation in the agreement. Congressional Republicans, who secured for themselves the right to review the deal prior to the U.S. making it official, are universally opposed to it, and some Democrats in both chambers have been hesitant to declare their support. There is plenty of reason to be skeptical of Iran’s motives and plans; the country has a long and sordid history of supporting destabilizing efforts in the Middle East, including militant Shia groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Critics’ concern that lifting sanctions and allowing Iran access to conventional weapons will reinvigorate that activity is legitimate; the deal does little to forestall such a scenario. But the alternative – a nuclear Iran – is hardly preferable.
The deal gives the international community 15 years to build relationships and expand dialogue with Iran and its neighbors so as to diffuse the age-old simmering tensions. This will not be an easy task, to be sure, but conducting those talks with a nuclear-armed Iran will certainly not simplify the matter. The deal, which Germany, Russia, China, France and Britain – as well as Iran – will all sign, is the best option and Obama is right to endorse it; indeed his administration was a prime architect.
The political grandstanding and dodging in Congress is to be expected. Israel adamantly opposes the deal, and many Jewish organizations in the United States do as well. There are good reasons – political and religious, among others – for that opposition, but it should not influence Congress’ action. The United States is in a position to actively improve global security while opening what have been icy relations for decades. That is a critical opportunity that will evaporate or worse, should the U.S. bow out of the deal. There are enough supporters in the U.S. House of Representatives to sustain a presidential veto of any resolution opposing the Iran agreement, and as of Wednesday, 34 Democrats in the Senate had signaled their support for the deal – enough to ward off an override in that chamber too. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Denver, has yet to stake a position on the deal. He should. And his colleague, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, should consider breaking with his party in the interest of collaborative solutions – even if they are just the beginning.
