fbpx

The Iran deal: getting to checkmate

The Iran nuclear deal has been likened, ad nauseam, to a game of chess. It is with that model in mind that I favor the deal — though not for the usual reasons.
[additional-authors]
August 12, 2015

The Iran nuclear deal has been likened, ad nauseam, to a game of chess. It is with that model in mind that I favor the deal — though not for the usual reasons. 

Proponents and opponents of the deal make a number of valid points. Most salient are the following: 

1) The sanctions regime is now kaput — with or without the deal; and there is no better deal to be had. 

2) After major sanctions (some $100 billion worth) are lifted, Iran will be freer to achieve all its ambitions, including nuclear. It will do so either by cheating (in the view of skeptics) or by simply interpreting ambiguous deal points in its favor (in the view of the Iranians).

3) Arguable Iranian violations of the deal (and what is not arguable?) will have no serious consequences. Most of the parties will wish to whitewash any violations to maintain the facade of success, and any objector will be left haggling with the Iranians. Also momentous, the decision to make an issue of any violation will have to be balanced against the deal provision that Iran may treat any reimposition of sanctions as relieving it of all deal obligations.

4) If the deal is not implemented, Iran will be legally excused from its contractual obligations to refrain from pursuing — and achieving in very short order — its nuclear weapon ambitions. 

Two other crucial points, however, have escaped the discussion thus far: 

First, President Barack Obama will never launch — or even condone — a military attack on Iran’s nuclear assets. His aversion to the use of force — or even the hint of threats — against Iran since taking office proves that much beyond any reasonable doubt. 

Second, no economic sanction regime or contractual deal obligations will permanently dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. The sanctions brought negotiations, and the negotiations bought time, but that time is running out. A decade or so does not mean much to Middle Easterners with three-millennium memories.

Our old friend the shah wanted nukes, the ayatollahs want nukes, and polls have shown that most Iranians want nukes: What they all agree on is that, as heirs to the once-greatest empire on earth, Persia, they cannot be denied this modern-day ticket to great-nation status: Iran must get the bomb — and economic pain is a small price to pay. As Ayatollah Khomeini famously put it, the Iranian revolution was not about lowering the price of melons.

When Pakistan similarly pursued the bomb under threat of economic sanctions, our friend, the secular, Western-educated and -oriented liberal President Ali Bhutto proclaimed, “We will eat grass, even go hungry, but we will get one  [an atomic bomb] of our own. … We have no other choice!” 

Iran under the mullahs feels much the same way — but more intensely. Iran, too, agonizes that its detested enemy already has the bomb. But Iran also wants to re-create the hegemony of Persia as well as the religious zeal to restore Islamic supremacy, which necessitates eliminating the intolerable Jewish sovereign presence at the heart of the Islamic world. The added ingredient of martyrism inherent in Shia Islam is what makes this bellicose concoction especially terrifying. 

So why support the deal? Because it buys time. It provides limited but crucial time during which Iran still has reasons to delay its ambitions. And time until there is a new president in the White House who possesses a greater will to use force to stop Iran’s pursuit of a bomb. Most of the current crop of candidates fill that bill, some obviously more than others.

Deal defenders assert all “suspicious” Iranian sites will be inspected after 24 days’ notice — but Iran’s supreme leader has announced all “military” sites are strictly off limits. The Iranian calculation is thus quite simple: Shelter suspicious nuclear activity within your military establishment. This is the basis of the forthcoming dispute over which the entire deal is liable to collapse in failure. 

The U.N. Security Council, however, is the final arbiter of such a dispute. Russia, China and perhaps others will not vote to “snap back” sanctions (let alone stop violations). The new American president will then face a decision: Tolerate Iranian obstinacy and hope for the best, or coordinate with Israel a comprehensive set of measures, escalating to military strikes. 

If a better deal is to be had, it is then. If not, at the least, a new president will condone an Israeli attack. Equally important, a new president can be counted on to resupply Israel the day after, when the missiles will likely start flying from Lebanon. What awaits may be called a “war” — between Israel (not the U.S.) and Iran and its proxies — but at least it will not be fought with nuclear weapons. One cannot be so sanguine about such a war in a decade, give or take, barring a more realistic strategy. 

Congressional representatives and senators can vote their conscience against the deal. It is an imperfect, even bad, deal, after all. But if the no votes actually kill the deal and the additional time it provides, it could be a mistake of historic proportions.

When chess began in the Middle East, the final move was not called “checkmate.” It was “sheikh meit,” your “leader is dead.” The stakes are life itself. One doesn’t prevail in chess, politics or war by impulsively making feel-good moves. Victory is achievable only by calculating rationally and moving strategically. 

Game on.


Jon E. Drucker has a master’s degree in international affairs from Columbia University and was a legislative aide for foreign policy to former Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). He now practices law in Los Angeles.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Print Issue: Got College? | Mar 29, 2024

With the alarming rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, choosing where to apply has become more complicated for Jewish high school seniors. Some are even looking at Israel.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.