Daily Alert Archives

The Myths of the Iran Deal

(Atlantic) Michael Oren - The majority of Israelis and Arabs would agree that negotiations are preferable to war with Iran, but only if they put an end to Iran's nuclear ambitions, its support for terror and construction of intercontinental missiles, and its campaign to dominate or destroy other states in the region. But diplomacy will be fruitless, and war eventually guaranteed, if the illusions surrounding the Iran deal persist. One myth is that the nuclear deal must be maintained because Iran is honoring its terms. But why wouldn't Iran hold to a treaty that preserved its nuclear infrastructure, enabled it to develop more advanced centrifuges, and ignored its construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads? The agreement does not require Iran to come clean on its previous military nuclear efforts, to sever its ties with international terror, or to stop threatening neighboring states. It does not open all Iranian nuclear sites to unrestricted inspection. It even contains "sunset clauses" that will lift most of the minimal limits on Iran's enrichment capacities within a decade. In theory, negotiations offer the best way forward. But if diplomacy is to succeed, it must be backed by punishing sanctions and a credible military threat. Indeed, the more credible the threat, the less chance it will have to be used. Only when confronted with the choice between pursuing their aggression and risking economic ruin, threatening global security and facing armed action, will Iranian rulers forfeit their nuclear program and their dreams of empire. Only then will our region, and ultimately the world, be safer. The writer is a former Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
2019-07-19 00:00:00
Full Article