The transformational Iran nuclear deal

President Barack Obama's opponents will simply not accept he is capable of any achievements. He brought an economy from the brink to which two wars by his predecessor had pushed the country and yet his opponents wanted to put the tag of America's all-time worst president on his back. He has now avoided a war that would be an unimaginable catastrophe, much worse than the Iraq and Afghan wars put together and succeeded in getting Iran to sign on the dotted line not to build the nuclear bomb for lifting of UN-imposed economic sanctions. Yet his opponents are dismissing it as a disaster for America.
The 157-page agreement between the US-led P5+1 and Iran is a document that starts with a preamble in which Iran has made the commitment "never to develop or build the nuclear bomb." The main elements of the Agreement binds Iran into a watertight compartment from where, as long as the Agreement remains in force for the next 15 years, it will be in no position to think about nuclear bomb, let alone building one.
An examination of the main elements tells why Iran will find it impossible to build the bomb as long as the Agreement remains in force. First, Iran will remove "two-thirds of its centrifuges and store them under international supervision." Second, it will rid itself of 98 per cent of its enriched uranium. Third, it will allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection rights "where necessary and when necessary." Fourth, the sanctions will be imposed again without any need of further consultations if it violates any provision or provisions of the Agreement.
In the details, Iran has been tied down further to make the Agreement foolproof lest it would be able to use loopholes in it and surreptitiously build the bomb. Thus Iran has pledged to sign the Additional Protocol with the IAEA to allow the international nuclear watchdog to carry out more stringent supervision. Iran alone negotiated the Agreement with six parties that have all been united to plug all loopholes to make it impossible for Iran as long as the Agreement remained in force to build the nuclear bomb. Therefore to believe that the Agreement would allow Iran any loopholes is not either rational or logical unless it is argued Iranian negotiators have been better than the six parties collectively.
Yet the Republicans, who dominate the US Congress, have attacked the Agreement like it is a piece of rubbish. They have taken the cue from Israel that the Agreement has been a historical blunder and have challenged Obama that they would not give it the safe passage it needs for him to commit America to the Agreement. The Congress must pass the Agreement in the next 60 days for it to go to the UN to be adopted as a UN resolution to implement it.
President Obama is now engaged in selling the Agreement to Americans. This is going to be a tough proposition given the virulent manner in which the Republicans have gone after it. The President has called the Agreement historical and to disperse American fear has underlined that it is not built on "trust" but on "verification;" that the Agreement will be void any time Iran would be in violation of it and then the sanctions would fall back in place. He has also highlighted that the alternative to rejecting the Agreement is to take out Iran's capabilities to build the bomb by invading the country as Israel is advocating.
The opponents are in denial of the catastrophic dangers of the war option. First, Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan. It is a proud, strong and a united nation. If Iraq/Afghanistan had helped send USA to one of its worst economic disasters in addition to the humongous losses in terms of human lives and money, fiddling with Iran would be many times worse. Second, the world no longer revolves around what the US desires. Between invasions of Iraq and now, the US's position in world politics has nosedived. Thus should the US become foolhardy and invade Iran, there is no reason for China and Russia to be silent spectators. Spectre of a Third World War could be embedded in an US-led invasion of Iran.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who interviewed President Obama on the Agreement, provided a perspective worth considering. He said the Agreement goes beyond stopping Iran possessing a nuclear bomb. It could, if nurtured correctly, be the conduit to Iran's rapprochement with the West with benefits for all. He underlined Iranian voters' preference for Hassan Rouhani as President is a signal, however feeble, of their desire for democracy. He also underlined that Iranians now feel over-subscribed with Islamisation and would like some breathing space. Therefore he felt that the Agreement could help bring Iran back from the cold like President Nixon's initiatives for rapprochement with China and ensure President Obama a permanent place of honour in history.
Thomas Friedman also underlined the stakes for Israel and US's other allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and the reasons for their opposition to the Agreement. He said Israel and countries like Saudi Arabia are unhappy with the Agreement because the lifting of sanctions would make Iran richer. A richer Iran, they feel, would be in a better position to become a dominant power in the region and help forces, in case of Israel, like Hamas and Hizbollah and in case of Saudi Arabia, the Shia regimes and other democratic movements in the region.
The forces that are opposing the Iran nuclear deal are doing so on grounds that are palpably unbelievable. The Agreement will undeniably stop Iran from possessing the bomb as long as it is in force that should fully satisfy the opponents. But they are also concerned that the lifting of economic sanctions will make Iran strong to become a dominant power in the region and help their enemies.
Thus, ridiculous as it may appear, Iran's opponents want Iran not only to convince them with an Agreement that would not only give Iran no opportunity in anyway whatever to build the bomb and at the same time also remain poor so that it cannot help their enemies in the region. They want Iran to sign the Agreement but for the sanctions to remain in force!
The writer is a retired Ambassador.
 [email protected]