I'll say right up top here that I don't like the part of the Iran nuclear agreement where it would take 24 days to get in and make a "surprise" inspection. In Olympic sports, when the drug testers show up at your door, you pee in the cup right away, or you get a suspension. (When drug cheat Irish swimmer Michelle Smith DIDN'T do this, she got in trouble, rightfully.)
But overall, it seemed like the Allies were basically going to drop the sanctions on Iran, agreement or not, which would be bad if there wasn't an agreement. So after what seemed to be arduous and difficult negotiations, an agreement was reached.
Now, I think many of the Republicans in Congress couldn't vote for anything Obama did, even if it was spectacularly good. So their opposition is not a surprise. But because it is a hard-fought compromise, it's bound to have some sticky points. So I wanted to see what other people in power said about the agreement. It seems like most of them are pretty satisfied by it.
Statement by French President Hollande about the Iran nuclear agreement
THE PRESIDENT – "A very important agreement was signed last night. The world really is moving forward. There had been negotiations for 12 years – 12 years. And now, at last, there’s a successful outcome. France was very firm in this negotiation and Laurent Fabius conducted it very rigorously and also very firmly. What was my concern? To avoid nuclear proliferation. What does nuclear proliferation mean? It means that Iran could have acquired nuclear weapons. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries would also want to acquire nuclear weapons. This would be a risk for the whole planet. So Iran had to be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has just agreed to reduce its capacities, its centrifuges.
The second important thing, second objective: we had to be able to verify, because it’s too easy to say “I’m giving up, but you can’t enter my territory to verify”. So inspections will be carried out.
The third objective I and Laurent Fabius had in this negotiation was for us to be able, certainly, to lift the sanctions – because there are sanctions against Iran –, but [also] restore them if there were the slightest breach. (…) So, Iran won’t have access to nuclear weapons – first point. We’ll be able to verify. If there are breaches, we’ll be able to restore the sanctions."
Britain
British Prime Minister David Cameron similarly praised the deal, saying that it "secures our fundamental aim -- to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- and that will help to make our world a safer place."
"There is a real opportunity for Iran to benefit from this agreement in terms of its economy," Cameron added, "but this will only happen if Iran delivers on all the agreed actions required to fully address international concerns about its program."
International
"In a joint statement, more than 70 of the world’s leading nuclear non-proliferation specialists outline why the JCPOA “is a strong, long-term, and verifiable agreement that will be a net-plus for international nuclear non-proliferation efforts.”
The non-proliferation specialists’ statement, organised by Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, point out that the July 14 agreement, “ … advances the security interests of the P5+1 nations (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the European Union, their allies and partners in the Middle East, and the international community.”
The joint statement is endorsed by former U.S. nuclear negotiators, former senior U.S. non-proliferation officials, a former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a former member of the U.N. Panel of Experts on Iran, and leading nuclear specialists from the United States and around the globe."
None of that sounds bad. In fact, it sounds quite good. But there's something else.
A lot has been made about the fact that this agreement results in the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran. The people against that say that this will allow Iran to use its restored economic stability and revenue to foment jihad fervor against the U.S. in the Middle East. Maybe. But history has shown us that an oppressed, deprived population, where there is a clear economic imbalance relative to those in power, is dangerous (think French Revolution). The people in Iran mainly want the lifting of the sanctions so that they can have a return to a much more normal (dare I say Western) lifestyle. Now, it's possible that the Iranian leadership can maintain the jihadist fervor when their people's lives are relatively comfortable, but it's a lot harder. That's because it's much easier to perceive as an enemy a country or group who is clearly economically advantaged (i.e. wealthy) compared to you than if the other side is on the same level, economically. The leaders can claim they're being oppressed in the former case, but that argument does not carry nearly as much weight in the latter case.
Plus, do we really think the people would accept the potential destruction of their country, and the definite re-imposition of harsh economic sanctions, if 10+ years from now the Iranian leaders start up their nuclear program? Would they really want the danger of being attacked if they even so much as talked about dropping a nuke on Israel? Especially after a decade of good economic conditions, and probably an improving standard of living?
I sure don't think so. I think that in 10 years the people of Iran would not want any disruption of a stable economic situation. I think they would resist strongly the potential imposition of sanctions again, and a return to conditions much like they've been experiencing for the past several years. Especially if their "enemies" have been helping to improve their economy, technology, and health.
So don't think it's nearly as bad as the Republicans say it is. (In fact, I'm very sure it isn't nearly as bad as the Republicans say it is.) I know it would be hard for them to say anything good about an Obama administration accomplishment of this significance. But after this admittedly brief analysis, I think, as numerous much more skilled diplomats, negotiators, and nuclear proliferation specialists have stated, that it is a good, effective, useful agreement that increases the safety of the world.
I sure hope I'm right about that.
No comments:
Post a Comment