1. Was there a better option?
The Obama administration says no. This agreement, the way it is presented by the administration, is the one and only agreement that was viable – and the alternative for it was war. Obama's words.
The Saudis, the Israelis, the Republican Party all say yes. A better agreement was possible, had the Obama administration not been so keen on reaching an agreement no matter which.
Hillary Clinton hasn't given an answer. She supports the agreement, cautiously, but like many of her Democratic friends, she might not want to give an answer to the what-could-have-been question, because many of them understand that the answer could be embarrassing for the President. These Democratic leaders rightly claim that the question now is not whether this agreement was the best one possible. The question is whether there is a better alternative now to confirming the agreement.
2. Is there a better option?
That is a tough question. If the deal is not implemented, the sanctions regime will surely collapse and Iran could expedite its efforts. On the other hand, if there is no agreement, the US and other countries will be free to take unilateral action against these expedite Iranian efforts. Does anyone believe that the Obama administration is going to take action against Iran if the agreement collapses? Not really. Is Israel ready to see the agreement collapse and take action? I can't say. Would the Iranians agree to renegotiate the agreement if it does not survive Congressional scrutiny? Unlikely. So what's the alternative for this fait accompli agreement? Michael Gerson is right to call the agreement a “reckless bet” today. Those trying to sabotage the agreement need to make sure that their course of action is not a parallel reckless bet. Their criticism of the agreement is apt. Their proposed alternative is somewhat murky.
3. Why is this agreement bad?
Israel's ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, does a fine job in laying out some of the shortcomings of the agreement. He counts four problems: leaving Iran with infrastructure, making restrictions temporary, encouraging proliferation in the region, giving Iran funds with which to pursue its goals. Israel's opposition leader, Yitzhak Herzog, did a good job this morning explaining on Israeli radio the main problem with the agreement: it relies heavily on the assumption that Iran's intentions are good and that agreements with Iran are likely to be implemented meticulously. Alas, Iran's intentions are not good, and history teaches us that Iran does not usually follow the scripts written for it in Washington or Vienna.
4. So why are smart people still supporting it?
This question has many answers. Some support it because they don’t much care if Iran goes nuclear or not and they just want this issue off their table. Some support it because they believe that the agreement can gradually change the atmosphere and, consequently, Iran's behavior. Some support it because they support Iran, and identify with its goals. Some support it because they see no other viable alternative short of war – and they do not want war.
It is quite easy to look at a proponent and identify the group to which he or she belongs.
5. Why do the Saudis and Israelis oppose it?
Because they know Iran better than other nations, understand its ambitions better than other nations, and are threatened by these ambitions more than other nations. Frederick Kagan writes: “Experts will debate the value of the concessions Iran has made on the nuclear front, but the value to Iran of the concessions the U.S. has made on nonnuclear issues is immeasurable. It is hard to imagine any other circumstance under which Tehran could have hoped to get an international, U.N. Security Council-backed commitment to remove the Republican Guard and Quds Force from any sanctions list, or to have the fate of the arms embargo placed in the hands of Vladimir Putin”. Newly acquired funds and weapons are going to be used by Iran to destabilize the region in which Saudis and Israelis have to survive – and Americans, French and Germans do not.
6. Is there really a consensus in Israel?
Yes, there is.
Of course, in a vibrant country in which everybody gets – and wants – to speak, you can find exceptions. Don’t make the mistake of thinking these exceptions mean much. There are no “camps” of supporters and opponents of the agreement in Israel. There is a camp of opponents, and a small band of the usual contrarians.
7. Does Israel still have a military option?
Former head of Mossad Ephraim Halevi says yes, there is. The government hints that yes, there is. Is Israel likely to use it? I would say probably not. Surely not before it can prove to the world that Iran is violating the agreement without the world promptly responding to these violations.
8. Is Congress going to reject the deal?
Maybe, but not with a majority large enough to overcome a veto. Congress is going to be divided by party line. We witnessed it yesterday, when Republicans vehemently criticized the agreement and Democrats refrained from criticism. “The best hope for Obama”, writes George Condon, “is that Republicans today fall into the trap that ensnared treaty opponents all through history – overstating the case against the deal”. I do not think there is much to overstate, as the deal is just not a good deal. But Obama supporters will surely feel differently as their leader is attacked and his accomplishment tarnished. They will expect their politicians to be politicians – namely, to vote the way the voters want them to vote rather than make a solid, independent and critical judgment of the agreement.
9. Will Jewish Americans fight against the agreement?
Some will, many will not. The response to the agreement from Jewish organizations was very cautious. That is not surprising. First of all, because, as Harry Enten proves, “The groups that generally approved of the deal were the same ones that generally approved of the job Obama has been doing as president”.
Besides, unlike a battle to get more funds for Israel, or a battle to relieve the pressure off Israel to do this or that in the peace process – battles that the American Jewish community can fight without much concern about domestic consequences – the battle over Iran could be highly consequential. The President threatened that it is his way or the way of war. Jewish Americans would be reluctant to associate themselves with a battle that might result in war. They will be intimidated by accusations that their actions could lead America into war.
10. Is there no positive side to this agreement?
If the President’s assessment is correct, and Israel's assessment is incorrect, then the agreement is wonderful. There are two problems with this positive outlook: the first is that it gives Iran the power to make it or brake it (and Iran tends to break things). The second is that it's a huge gamble that could lead to catastrophe.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.