In the week or so since the Iran sanctions treaty was announced there has been a mountain of articles, op/eds and editorials about what the treaty portends. They range from apocalyptic—that Israel will be in existential danger in short order to—to sanguine—that Iran will, with restored trade and greater contacts, undergo transformational change as it reengages with the world.
I am no arms control expert and, admittedly, have not read the document. There are however, folks whom I highly regard, whose judgment on foreign policy matters has proven wise and incisive, that I look to for guidance. Two of those folks, Dennis Ross and Efraim Halevy, have counseled caution and the avoidance of assessments that aren’t careful and fact based.
Dennis Ross, a former diplomat and Middle East hand who was, among countless other posts, the lead negotiator with Iran during the Obama administration until his resignation in 2011. Ross wrote an “>piece in www.Ynetnews.com argues that Iran has accepted “serious restrictions” on its nuclear ambitions including a “unique and invasive” monitoring program,
Iran made concessions in a series of critical matters – it loathed the actual detailed discussion of its nuclear plans, and it has been hit with serious restrictions for the next 10 to 15 years. In the Middle East, a decade is eternity. Iran was also forced to agree to an invasive and unique supervision regime like no other in the world. The agreement even allows inspections at sites which supreme leader Ali Khamenei announced that he would not let inspectors into. In addition, the agreement sets a – complex but clear – process giving a forum with a clear Western majority the possibility of restoring the sanctions even without Russia and China's consent. And this is only a partial list of the concessions.
Halevy warns about what will happen if the treaty is defeated by the Congress,
Without an agreement, Iran will be free to do as it pleases, while the sanctions regime will anyway crumble, as many of the world's countries will rush to Tehran to sign profitable contracts. The US will then lose its influence over the situation in the 18 months left until the end of Obama's term, its leadership will be castrated and humiliated, while Israel will only remain with the independent military option. That's what British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond referred to when he said that Netanyahu is not interested in any agreement with Iran, regardless of its content.
*****
Why if the nuclear issue is of existential-cardinal importance, what is the point in annulling an agreement which keeps Iran away from the bomb in order to try and insert clauses regarding terror, which is definitely not an existential threat to Israel? As far as terror is concerned, other economic and financial sanctions have been declared, and they will remain valid.
Halevy concludes,
A moment before we storm Capitol Hill, led by the Israeli ambassador to Washington, it's important to hold a profound debate in Israel on whether no agreement is preferable to an agreement which includes components that are crucial for Israel's security. There will be no other agreement and no other negotiations. What is better, a signed agreement or no agreement?
These two thoughtful voices urge restraint in our rhetoric and some serious thinking about what will result from the agreement and its provisions. Not responses that are filtered through our fears as to what might happen in 10 years if there is no serious implementation of the treaty's strictures. Both articles are worth a read as you sift through the bloviating, posturing and fear-mongering that is omnipresent.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.