About Us

IMRA
IMRA
IMRA

 

Subscribe

Search


...................................................................................................................................................


Saturday, April 11, 2015
Inbar at BESA: There is No "Better Deal" - only military action can stop Iran

There is No "Better Deal" with Iran
by Efraim Inbar
BESA Center Perspectives
April 9, 2015
http://www.meforum.org/5165/iran-no-better-deal

The debate over the pros and cons of the Iran nuclear framework agreement
negotiated between the P-5+1 and Iran at Lausanne (April 2, 2015) is simply
irrelevant. The search for truth in the conflicting versions and details of
the deal coming out of Washington and Tehran is of no consequence. Moreover,
the steps suggested by Israel and other critics to improve the efficacy of
the deal (by more stringent inspections and so on) will result in little
change. The deal is basically dangerous in nature, and needs to be rejected
outright.

The deal permits Iran to preserve stockpiles of enriched uranium, to
continue to enrich uranium, and to maintain illegally built facilities at
Fordow and Arak. Even in the absence of a signed full agreement, the US and
its negotiating partners have already awarded legitimacy to Iran's nuclear
threshold status. In all likelihood, the United States, quite desperate to
secure an agreement, will make additional concessions in order to have a
signed formal deal – which will not be worth the paper on which it is
written.

This outcome has been a foregone conclusion since November 2013, when the US
agreed to the "Joint Plan of Action" on Iran's nuclear program. Already back
then, the US decided not to insist on the goal of rolling back the Iranian
nuclear program, ignoring several UN Security Council resolutions demanding
no uranium enrichment. Washington also disregarded the security concerns of
its allies in the Middle East (primarily Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt –
who better understand the regional realities).

Middle Easterners clearly discern an Iranian diplomatic victory in this
accord, which is no surprise. Iranians are much more adept at negotiating
than Americans. Iran is getting more or less what it wanted: The capability
to produce enriched uranium and to research weapon design; an agreement to
keep its missile program intact; and no linkages to Iranian behavior in the
region. The deal is a prelude to nuclear breakout and Iranian regional
hegemony.

Indeed, with no attempt to roll back the Iranian nuclear program, as was
done in Libya, we are progressing toward the North Korean model. Those two
are the only options in dealing with nuclear programs of determined states
such as Iran. Iran's nuclear program benefited in many ways from assistance
that originated in Pakistan and in North Korea (both are nuclear
proliferators despite American opposition). Compare the recent statements by
President Obama to the speeches of President Clinton justifying the
agreement with North Korea (October 1994). Their similarities are amazing;
an indication of the incredible capacity of great powers for self-delusion.

What counts is not the Obama's administration expression of satisfaction
with the prospective deal, but the perceptions of Middle East actors. For
example, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have deplored the fact that the US is
bestowing international legitimacy on Iran's status as a nuclear threshold
state. They probably believe the interpretations of the deal offered by
Tehran more than those professed in Washington. Therefore, they will do
their best to build a similar infrastructure leading inevitably to nuclear
proliferation in the region – a strategic nightmare for everybody.

Unfortunately, no better deal is in the offing. Whatever revisions are
introduced cannot change its basic nature. The accord allows Iran to have
fissionable material that can be enriched to weapons grade material in a
short time and Tehran can always deny access to inspectors any time it
chooses. This is the essence of the North Korean precedent.

Obama is right that the only alternative to this deal is an Iranian nuclear
fait accompli or the bombing of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Obama's
penchant for engagement, his reluctance to use force, and his liberal prism
on international relations (which adds rosy colors to international
agreements) have led to this miserable result.

Netanyahu is wrong in demanding a better deal because no such deal exists.
Yet denying its ratification by the US Congress could create better
international circumstances for an Israeli military strike. In fact,
criticism of Obama's deal with Iran fulfills only one main function – to
legitimize future military action. Indeed, Netanyahu is the only leader
concerned enough about the consequences of a bad deal with the guts and the
military capability to order a strike on the Iranian key nuclear
installations.

If inspections, sanctions, sabotage and political isolation ever had a
chance to stop Iran from getting the bomb, that certainly is no longer the
case. It is more evident than ever that only military action can stop a
determined state, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, from building a
nuclear bomb. It remains to be seen whether Israel has elected the leader to
live up to this historic challenge.
=====================
Efraim Inbar is director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, a
professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a
Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Search For An Article

....................................................................................................

Contact Us

POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
Fax 972-3-7255730
email:imra@netvision.net.il IMRA is now also on Twitter
http://twitter.com/IMRA_UPDATES

image004.jpg (8687 bytes)