Politics

اتفاق إيران النووي الرديء... الضروري

Oct 13, 2017 Ehud Barak

تل أبيب ــ يستعد الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترمب لإلغاء الاتفاق النووي مع إيران، وهو ما من شأنه أن يطلق عملية يستطيع الكونجرس الأميركي بموجبها أن يعيد فرض العقوبات على إيران. ولكن لحسن الحظ، يبدو أن الكونجرس من المرجح أن يسعى بدلا من إلغاء الاتفاق إلى إيجاد بديل يسمح لترمب بإنقاذ ماء وجهه بين أنصاره، الذين وعدهم بانسحاب الولايات المتحدة من الاتفاق. ومع ذلك فإن إلغاء الاتفاق سيكون خطأً جسيما.

الواقع أنني، مثلي في ذلك كمثل العديد من الإسرائيليين، أتفق مع ترمب في أن الاتفاق الذي تم التوصل إليه مع إيران في عام 2015 يُعَد صفقة رديئة في الأساس. ولكنه أيضا اتفاق مبرم. وحتى لو قررت الولايات المتحدة الانسحاب منه بالكلية، فلن يحذو حذوها أي من الأطراف الأخرى ــ لا الصين ولا روسيا ولا حتى الدول الأوروبية (فرنسا وألمانيا والمملكة المتحدة). وسوف تواصل إيران جني فوائد الاتفاق.

ولكن في الوقت نفسه، ربما تنظر إيران إلى قرار الولايات المتحدة بالنكوص عن الاتفاق باعتباره مبررا لإحياء برنامجها النووي الموقوف. ففي نهاية المطاف، يجيز قانون مراجعة الاتفاق النووي مع إيران للرئيس الأميركي إلغاء الاتفاق إذا انتهكت إيران شروطه. ومن الناحية الفنية على الأقل، لم تفعل إيران شيئا من هذا القبيل.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

Stephen Demetriou Oct 29, 2017

While I do agree with Mr. Barak that the US should maintain engagement with Iran under the constraints of the JCPOA as walking away would weaken non-proliferation and disarmament efforts, harming the US negotiating position in any future negotiation efforts, Mr. Barak if anyone should know Iran's ballistic missile program is as much if not more a deterrent effort against aggressive neighbors in the region than it is a display of outward aggression. Mr. Barak's biographers have written about this.

The "exportation of terrorism" by Iran is a phrase resembling "Carthage must be destroyed," especially by some in the US Congress and around the Trump Administration. Defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq has been an inconvenient "common cause" with everyone else fighting ISIS, and philosophically the religious motivations that has driven both ISIS and Al Qaeda and their actions in the region did not originate in Iran. And neither have the Houthis in Yemen been a proxy force fighting to assure Iran's regional interests are strengthened and advanced as commonly advertised. The slaughter being visited on the civilian population by the Saudis, with US help, seems more a sign of weakness by the Saudis than the result of strategic moves by Iran. The Houthis have their own regional interests and crises created largely by themselves and local conditions. I have my opinions about who the greater exporter of terrorism in the region is.

None of this view ignores what Iran is capable of but President Rouhani has been consistent in his efforts since 2003 in seeking a bargain with the West around the issues the West has had with Iran. Commentary that walks the edge between sufficiently calling out Iran for perceived, both correctly and incorrectly, "aggressive stances" and the reality within Iran of the fractious politics between competing IRG hardliners, the old ruling mullahs and changing class of citizens that support them, and a young and growing public that increasingly rejects strict religious dictates on their lives, and who want little more than a decent economic life, casting their lots for the most pragmatic of leaders available to them... commentary that colors the Iranian "demon" as so diabolical as to fail to see the opportunity to coax the better angels out does no one any good. Mr. Barak's commentary does not wholly do this; too much commentary in the US does, and is dangerous for everyone.

In my opinion Trump himself lacks the interest or the expertise to appreciate the strategic blunder he has made handing a problem of his own making to a dysfunctional Congress. History seems to be repeating itself with a Republican Congress tasked with doing the right thing regarding a nuclear agreement. North Korea's nuclear capability ought to be a lesson to them. I doubt it has been.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
gobinathsreyas Oct 29, 2017

Nice article and gave a good Insight. Pls explain What are the benefits that are currently reaped by Iran through this deal?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Phil Cartier Oct 20, 2017

Yes the Iran deal was a bad deal. The main problem is that there is little effective international observation. A 45 day notice of inspection makes observation meaningless. The only effective way to inspect would be the Iranians welcome the inspectors into any facility when they arrive, with full access to any facility or facilities and all records. Iran refused to accept meaningfull inspection from the start because they knew they would not be able to hide new facilities or new programs from the inspectors. A few nanograms of an isotope can identify a facility or even the lot of ore it came from.

The other problem is Iran is not in compliance with several other "treaties" including the ICBM and other missile programs. Since they openly don't follow those treaties what reason is there to think they will faithfully follow the nuclear treaty.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 15, 2017

Ehud Barak, like many in Israel, agree with Trump that the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran is "fundamentally" flawed. But unlike his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, he supports it, because it is "a done deal" backed by Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. Even if the US decides to withdraw from it, the others will remain compliant. For the moment it is the best option to prevent Iran from joining the ranks of North Korea and Pakistan.
The author criticises Trump for making a serious mistake. Every 90 days Congress requires the president to certify that Iran is upholding its part of the agreement. Trump had already recertified twice, but refused to sign a third time ahead of the Sunday deadline. Now Congress has 60 days to decide. Fortunately it is likely that "rather than pulling the plug on the deal," Congress may "seek some alternative that allows Trump to save face with his supporters," who expected him to scuttle it.
Condemning Iran as a "fanatical regime" Trump accused the country of sponsoring terrorism and stoking unrest. He proposed new sanctions and would deny Iran "all paths to a nuclear weapon". Obviously he doesn't want to let Tehran "continue to reap the agreement’s benefits." Yet Iran "could view the US decision to renege on the deal as justification for reviving its halted nuclear program." Trump can only "decertify the deal if Iran violates its terms." So far international observers say Iran has been in full compliance with the deal.
Even though Iran's behaviour is "deeply troubling" and actons "should be taken to apply pressure on Iran to address these issues," but it was never "part of the nuclear deal." On the contrary Trump's reckless decision will only "undermine America’s credibility when it comes to reining in another nuclear threat: North Korea." It begs the question why Kim Jong-un should be bothered to negotiate with Washington, if "the US can default on its international commitments for no reason?"
Seeing the ignominious fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, Kim is convinced that giving up his nuclear weapons would be a huge mistake - he would lose the "substantial leverage" over the Korean Peninsula. The arsenal would guarantee his survival, because should the US strike first, he would have the option to retaliate, by "inflicting untold destruction on South Korea and perhaps also Japan – both close US allies."
Like dealing with Iran, diplomacy is the only way to resolve the North Korean crisis. The author points out the risk of nuclear proliferation, should diplomacy fail. If Pyongyang won't freeze its nuclear programme, Japan and South Korea would acquire their own nuclear weapons to counter the threat from the North. If the US scraps the nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran would resume its nuclear activities, prompting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to "pursue nuclear breakout."
The author says, while the "Iranian horse remains in the barn" thanks to the "current agreement," the North Korean "proverbial horse" has broken free, running wild. "The US should be attempting to corral North Korea, not giving Iran reason to bolt, too." He foresees "a distinct possibility" in the future for a "potential" nuclear breakout in Iran, "even if the current deal is upheld." Althoug Iran "would be unlikely to pursue nuclear breakout immediately, because the deal still affords it substantial benefits. A few years from now, however, those benefits would be largely secured, giving Iran less reason to stick to its promises."
Let's hope that the author is wrong. According to the polls, ordinary Iranians, over half of whom are under 35, don't want their country to be a pariah state. The majority of them want their country to be a normal member of the international community, playing a positive role as a responsible player.
It is important for the US to define "an Iranian breakout, in order to help guide the inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency." Apart from coordinating "with the agreement’s other signatories regarding the sanctions and other punishments that would be meted out if Iran actually did breach the deal," the US should put aside its "big American stick" and Iran its decades-long hostility to build mutual trust.
As an Israeli, the author urges the US to use its "intelligence, weapons, and political will, to intervene - unilaterally," to prevent Iran from coming as far as North Korea. He sees Iran as "a serious threat – to Israel, of course, but also to the stability of the Middle East and, in a sense, of the whole world." As the "threat is not existential," the best way to remove it is to involve Iran in a sensible way - through diplomacy, convincing Netanyahu's far-right cabinet that "security is best served by maintaining the current deal."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.