Advertisement

Why Some People Think The Iran Nuclear Deal Is Historic And Others Think It’s A Historic Mistake

CREDIT: AP
CREDIT: AP

The Iranian nuclear deal is already being labelled by the White House as historic and as a historic mistake by critics. In the coming months, the repercussions of Tuesday’s agreement will become clear.

As it stands, the current deal plans to release $100 billion to Iran in frozen assets so long as Iran does not enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent for at least 15 years and dilutes or sells the uranium that is already enriched. This would prevent Iran from producing the ingredients necessary to build a nuclear weapon. Iran must also allow inspectors into all nuclear facilities, including military sites.

“[This is the] most effective chance we have to prevent Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon,” Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said. “It gives us greater access, knowledge, and ability to lock down any attempt.”

The National Security team at the Center for American Progress, put out five criteria last month that would determine whether the nuclear deal was a success. Tuesday’s deal shows that all five of these criteria were met. Deal supporters generally feel that the agreement was a success and that it will open the doorway to better relations between Iran and the western world as well as preventing a future war.

Advertisement

Opponents though feel the deal wasn’t strong enough and could enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons at a future date. For some, Iran’s record of supporting groups that the U.S. considers as terrorist organizations and anti-western and Israeli rhetoric emanating from inside the country are evidence that Iran is not to be trusted and shouldn’t be allowed to have any nuclear capabilities whatsoever.

“The comprehensive nuclear agreement announced today appears to further the flawed elements of April’s interim agreement because the Obama administration approached these talks from a flawed perspective: reaching the best deal acceptable to Iran, rather than actually advancing our national goal of ending Iran’s nuclear program,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said in a statement.

Iran is often painted as a nefarious actor in the Middle East. This view is held by some in Israel and some of the Persian Gulf states’ leaders.

Experts meanwhile believe that Iran sees their influence in the Middle East — propping up an autocratic dictator in Syria, fighting ISIS in Iraq, and funding proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon — as largely a matter of survival. The U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan shook the Iranian regime to their core. Supporters of the deal hope that the thaw in negotiations between Iran and the west will alter Iran’s regional influence to be more aligned with western interests, whereas opponents don’t see that happening.

“The weak points [in the agreement] are not new,” Shlomo Brom a Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Progress and former Brigadier General in the Israeli Army told ThinkProgress. Brom was one of the authors of CAP’s five criteria. “We’ve known them since the framework agreement [reached in April]. They’ve just detailed the same agreement.”

Advertisement

Brom said some critics disapproved of the time limits set on Iranian restrictions (ex. Iran cannot enrich uranium past 3.67 percent for 15 years). A regular argument concerning autocratic regimes like Iran’s is that they aren’t held to term limits, unlike democratic nations. Brom said critics of the deal feel Iran has unlimited patience and could wait “100 years” before deciding to develop nuclear weapons. While Brom concedes that critics may be proven right, he feels it was “not possible” to totally dismantle Iran’s nuclear program.

One of the previous holdups over negotiations was Iran’s refusal to allow inspections at nuclear sites. The current deal allows the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to access all sites, including military sites. A predetermined joint commission — made up of one member from each negotiating side — will then have to approve the inspection.

“This was solved in a good way,” said Brom. While certain critics were pushing for unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear sites, Brom said, “it never works that way.”

Another contentious issue is the “snapback” of sanctions should Iran fail to follow the deal’s provisions. Should sanctions be lifted, Iran will receive $100 billion in frozen assets.

However the mechanism in place to reinstate sanctions should be seen as a success, Brom said. For sanctions to be reinstated under the current deal, five out of the eight negotiating parties (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia, Germany, Iran, and the EU) need to agree. Normally, such a vote would be put to the UN Security Council which requires unanimity in decision making. In this instance, China and/or Russia do not have the power to veto the snapback of sanctions.

Now, we have to wait and see if the deal holds. As Brom notes, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is not expected to live that much longer.