Nuclear agreement: There is no “better deal” with Iran

iran nuke dealThose who think “a better deal” with Iran is possible are beyond just dreamers– they are dangerous and naive fantasizers. Believing that the US can unilaterally kill the deal, that our partners including Russia will think that is just fine and agree to toughen the sanctions (much less just keep the current ones going), and that Iran will be squeezed so badly they will be forced back to the negotiating table and agree to even stronger conditions, is, quite simply, farkakte. (Yiddish for, um, screwed up.)

As it says in this column in Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, US officials are derisive of the claim that this agreement can be reversed, and that…

…the signed agreement would be revoked, the existing sanctions would be tightened, and Iran, rather than breaking out and racing towards a nuclear bomb, would meekly agree to return to the negotiating table in order to hammer out a deal that would inevitably be worse that the one Tehran already has now.

The column also rebuts claims that Obama and Kerry ignored Netanyahu’s objections. In fact, they met several of them head on, and Netanyahu kept moving the goalposts. And it continues,

In any case, even if one assumes that Iran will try to violate its ongoing obligations and try to build a bomb, the advantages of the agreement outweigh its disadvantages. “They will be more transparent, we will have better knowledge of their abilities, we will be partners to the security arrangements on their nuclear installations, they will be without plutonium and without [nuclear facility] Fordow,” the [administration] officials said – and with a lot to lose.

In the real world, and not some fantasy world that the deal’s opponents are living in, this is a good agreement with the toughest inspections in history and the security of knowing that Iran will not have a bomb for 15-20 years or more. Kill the deal, and Iran will have the bomb much sooner, and we will not have the strict inspections to monitor them.