(Wall Street Journal) Michael Singh - U.S. officials insist that "no deal is better than a bad deal." They also suggest, however, that the alternative is military action - which they say would ensure that Iran moves to obtain nuclear weapons. By this logic, any deal we can get is, by definition, a good deal insofar as it averts military action. This reinforces suspicions among U.S. allies in the Middle East that we are desperate to reach an agreement with Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued for three changes: that any deal leave Iran with less nuclear infrastructure than the U.S. proposes countenancing; that the "sunset clause" be scrapped; and that the final lifting of sanctions be contingent on Iran renouncing its support for terrorism and other behavior that destabilizes the region. Each of these is a serious proposal. Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has argued that allowing Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges suggests that they have a military purpose rather than a civilian function. The sunset clause is problematic in that it incentivizes Iran to play for time in anticipation of the day restrictions are eased; it also encourages Iran's regional rivals to place any nuclear efforts of their own on the same timeline. Netanyahu raised concrete objections to specific terms of an agreement that is not yet finalized. To simply dismiss the concerns of a close U.S. ally is not a satisfactory response. The writer, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, worked on Middle East issues at the National Security Council from 2005 to 2008.
2015-03-06 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive