Daily Alert Archives

A Deeply Flawed Deal

(National Interest) Emily B. Landau - The narrative of "no alternative" to the Iran deal never was an accurate description of reality. It was always a political tactic that worked especially well with populations that are so frightened of the short-term implications of any military threat that they are willing to close their eyes not only to the problems with this deal, but to the vastly more dangerous longer-term implications of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran was successful in achieving its goals in the negotiation - namely, to lift all sanctions, retain its breakout capability and gain international recognition and legitimacy for its vast nuclear program - in large part because it stuck to its narrative and its red lines. Iran simply refused to budge on anything of true significance. The U.S. feared that if the P5+1 were tougher with Iran, the talks would have collapsed. But Iran was at the table because it desperately needed sanctions relief; therefore, it would not really have let the talks collapse. Now U.S. officials are again twisting the facts and the alternatives, presenting its concessions as nonconcessions. If Congress does voice its opposition, it would be a strong message that this is indeed a bad deal, and that in turn could perhaps garner support for efforts to at least improve mechanisms of dealing with Iranian violations. The writer is head of the Arms Control Program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.
2015-08-03 00:00:00
Full Article