The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't Worth Saving

(New York Times) Michael B. Oren - "The only alternative to the Iran nuclear deal is war." That is what the Obama administration and proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran claimed in 2015. Such scare tactics were dishonest enough in 2015. Today, in view of the agreement's ruinous consequences, they are morally indefensible. The alternative was never war, but a better deal. Rather than lifting sanctions on Iran, allowing it to retain its nuclear infrastructure and develop more advanced centrifuges, a better deal would have stripped Iran of capacities like uranium enrichment, which is unnecessary for a civilian energy program, and linked any deal to changes in Iran's support for terrorism, its regional aggression, and its gross violation of human rights at home. A better deal also would not have removed restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in 2025. In a mere eight years it can reactivate its nuclear plants and rapidly enrich enough uranium for dozens of nuclear bombs. Instead of blocking Iran's path to nuclear weapons, the agreement paves it. Rather than reducing the likelihood of war, the agreement has made many wars inevitable. The agreement's apologists say that altering or negating the agreement will irreparably harm America's prestige. Yet it is difficult to see how America's status is served by a refusal to stand up to Iran's complicity in the massacre of half a million Syrians and its efforts to annihilate American allies. Revisiting the agreement will send an unequivocal message to the world that Iran's state-funded terrorism and its attempts to establish a Shiite empire will not be tolerated. The writer, Israel's deputy minister for diplomacy, was the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. from 2009 to 2013.

2017-10-09 00:00:00

Full Article


Visit the Daily Alert Archive