Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.

Iran and the major world powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) have less than two weeks to come to a deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As talks continue in Vienna, here’s your guide to everything you need to know about why the United States doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, whether or not a deal will be worked out, and what options remain if talks fail.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

How long has Iran had a nuclear program?

Iran has had a nuclear program in some form since the 1950s. Oddly enough, the United States helped Iran lay the foundation for their programs with President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace initiative. Atoms For Peace exported nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium. This program was merely for developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy around the globe. Eisenhower did not intend to develop a nuclear weapons system in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear energy program was supported by the United States in some capacity until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran was then left without international support and continued to develop its nuclear program.

Iran has always insisted that its program is merely for energy, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the leaders of many Western nations have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons.

Is Iran allowed to have nuclear weapons?

If Iran is making nuclear weapons, and most signs point to this being true, then it would be violating international law. Iran is a signatory, along with every country but North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the South Sudan, to the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty holds signatory nations to three main points:

1. The signatory nation must not create nuclear weapons.
2. Signatory nations must disarm themselves of all nuclear weapons.
3. All signatory nations have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

It is important to note that the NPT labels the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear-weapons states. This means that they do not have to disarm. They only have to negotiate in good faith to work toward disarmament.

Iran often cites point three in its defense, while critics argue that the country is violating points one and two.

Here is a NATO overview of the NPT:

Why does the United States not want Iran to have nukes?

There are few reasons the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the United States and Iran have not been on good terms in the past few decades.

In 1953, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and replacing it with the Shah, a monarch who was friendly to the interests of the United States. The Iranian people remembered this when they overthrew this government during the Islamic Revolution. This, plus the fact that the United States took in the Shah after his exile from Iran, is why revolutionaries held diplomats hostage at the American embassy in Iran  for 444 days. Relations have been cold ever since. This video provides a more in-depth summary of U.S.-Iran relations:

There’s another big reason the United States does not want Iran to have nukes: Iran is geographically close to Israel, a close American ally. The Iranian government does not like Israel, and the Israeli government does not like Iran. For emphasis, these two countries really do not like each other. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the worst kept secrets in international politics, and letting its  adversary also have nuclear weapons is a recipe for trouble.

A third concern is that Iran could spark a domino effect of sorts in the region. If Iran has nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want nukes, which will motivate another Middle Eastern country after another to get nukes until the Middle East, a rather unstable region, is covered in warheads.

How has America tried to stop Iran?

For now, the United States, and many other countries, has used economic sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear problem. According to the State Department, these sanctions target the Iranian sectors of finance, transportation, shipping, energy, and more.

Why is Iran willing to talk now?

There are two reasons that Iran is willing to come to an agreement with the world’s powers.

First, the sanctions worked. The economic punishments vastly increased the average Iranian’s cost of living and increased Iran’s inflation rate to a staggering 40 percent. This can be mostly attributed to the American and European embargoes on Iranian oil. In 2012, when the sanction took effect in Europe, Iran’s exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1.53 bbl/d. The Rial (Iran’s currency) also collapsed, dropping by 80 percent between 2011 and 2012.

Second, Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, is much more reasonable than the last one. You might remember former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the crazy guy who said he wanted to wipe Israel “off the map” and that there were no gay people in Iran. This was not a man who would be willing to negotiate with America. Rouhani, on the other hand, ran as a reformer and campaigned on working with the West to ease the sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy.

The President is not the most powerful actor in Iranian. That distinction goes to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the fact that Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run and win shows that he is willing to negotiate.

What has already been agreed upon?

In November 2013, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, came to an interim agreement. Iran halted parts of its nuclear program and in return Western nations eased some of the sanctions. This was a six-month deal that halted progress at every nuclear facility in Iran, and also prevented the building additional facilities. The idea was that a more comprehensive deal would come about in six months.

Here is an ABC News report on how this deal played out in Iran and the United States:

There is debate over whether or not this deal was a good idea. Watch CNN’s Crossfire discuss the issue. The introduction is obnoxious, but the rhetorical arguments are an accurate representation of both sides of the issue:

Six months will be up on July 20 of this year. That means Iran and the world powers have less than two weeks to come to a comprehensive agreement. While the option to extend the deadline is on the table, American diplomats have stated that they are unlikely to support such an extension.

What is still left to agree upon?

The main sticking point for a comprehensive deal is the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain. Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges. Western powers would like to see that number reduced to the low thousands, while Iran would like to someday have 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges are not the only problem that negotiators will face over the next two weeks, however. While Iran has accepted tougher inspection requirements and limits on production of enriched uranium, the country does not want its ballistic missile system to be on the table. It also wants more sanctions to be removed and is not interested in dismantling nuclear facilities.

Iran will resume nuclear production and the world powers will resume crippling sanctions if the two sides cannot resolve these differences.

What should the United States do if talks fail?

Continuing sanctions without any chance of an agreement would be foolish. In 2003, Iran approached the Bush administration under crippling sanctions to discuss a deal. Bush passed, believing that the sanctions would just lead to the collapse of the regime. Iran had 164 centrifuges at that time, which has increased by more than 11,000 percent to its current cache of 19,000.

Sanctions alone will not deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. If talks do not work, military force seems to be the only option left.

Should the United States bomb Iran?

This debate is best personified by Matthew Kroenig and Colin H. Kahl, two contributors to Foreign Affairs. Watch them debate the issue here:

For those of you who do not have an hour of free time, here is a summary of their arguments:

Advocates of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities argue that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for America and its allies. A nuke would give Iran too much leverage in the region. Worse, Israel and Iran would be at constant odds without the safeguards that prevented nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. Kroenig claims that military action in Iran could be contained to just nuclear sites, involve few civilian casualties, and inspire little retaliation. As long as America assures Iran that it is only attacking nuclear facilities, Iran will react calmly.

Kahl argues that a surgical strike would be a disaster and that the United States should merely contain Iran as a nuclear power. Even if the strike succeeds, which is not a given, Kahl envisions a massive retaliation from Iran that includes closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military forces in the Gulf, and providing lethal assistance to terrorist groups that the West is currently fighting throughout the region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz alone would send a shockwave through global markets, but Iranian attacks against American troops would be devastating. Plus, given how unstable the region is, there’s no telling what kind of violence this could cause in other Middle Eastern nations.

Even worse, Kahl does not believe that a military strike would deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Such a strike would only set the program back by a few years, and has the potential to rally Iranians around rebuilding. It’s not as if America can remove the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons from the Iranian people.

Conclusion

Iran and the West have until July 20 to come to an agreement. If diplomats fail, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program and the Western world will continue to cripple the country’s economy with strong sanctions.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

On July 18, negotiators in Vienna agreed to extend the deadline by four months to November 24, 2014. Negotiators also agreed to extend the terms of the stop-gap agreement. Iran will still halt its nuclear program and the United States will continue to suspend sanctions. Iran and the world powers have made some progress but they are still struggling to agree on how large the country’s nuclear program should be.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Iran Sanctions

Energy Information Administration: Energy Information Administration on the Iranian economy

Additional

Reuters: U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Rebukes Iran

Cold War: CIA Overthrows Iranian Democracy

CNN: Facts About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

NPR: Iran’s Economy Key in Nuclear Deal

Economist: A Red Line and a Reeling Rial

LA Times: U.S. Threatens to End Iran Nuclear Talks

Foreign Affairs: Not Time to Attack Iran

CNN: Final Talks Before Deadline Begin

CNN: What Critics Are Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

Foreign Affairs: Time to Attack Iran

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iranian Nuclear Talks: Final Deadline Looming appeared first on Law Street.