Local Reaction To
Iran Nuclear Pact
N
o, the provisions of the interim
deal signed in Geneva with
Iran early Nov. 24 are not
themselves disastrous. If the U.S. and
other world powers had been negotiat-
ing a contract with a dependable and
credible interlocutor, the deal might
make a certain amount of sense. The
problem is that Iran is not a dependable
or credible interlocutor. It is, rather, a
cunning and deceptive adversary, and
the U.S. has let it off the hook.
In so far as they go, the terms of the
deal make a certain amount of sense.
Iran's march to the bomb, in theory,
is being temporarily con-
strained. It can no longer
enrich uranium to 20 per-
cent and must neutralize
its existing stockpiles of 20
percent enriched uranium.
It cannot increase its stock-
piles of 3.5 percent enriched
uranium.
It can no longer advance
work on its Arak heavy
water facility, under a clause
that was much improved
from the amateurish formu-
lation put to the Iranians in the original
Geneva offer three weeks ago, which
would have enabled them to continue
construction there.
Its acknowledged nuclear facilities
will be subjected to far more intrusive
and effective inspection. And the sanc-
tions relief, formally at least, is relatively
limited and theoretically reversible if the
Iranians break their promises.
The problem is that Iran has never
acknowledged that it is, in fact, marching
to the bomb. And these interim arrange-
ments, concluded at a moment when
the regime felt itself to be under unprec-
edented economic pressure, a moment
of maximal leverage, scandalously failed
to require Iran to admit to those two
decades-plus of lying and deception.
Instead, the United States, the free
world's only hope of thwarting Iran,
appears to have convinced itself that
this admission of duplicity, this Iranian
confession that it has been developing
nuclear weapons, can be extracted over
the coming six months as negotiations
move ahead on a permanent accord.
Unfortunately, disastrously, that's just
not going to happen.
As stated by the White House on
Nov. 24, the "comprehensive solution"
to be negotiated by late May "envisions
concrete steps to give the international
26
December 5 • 2013
community confidence that Iran's nucle-
ar activities will be exclusively peaceful."
By definition, then, such a compre-
hensive deal will require the exposure of
those elements of the Iranian program
— such as the Parchin military com-
plex, where the International Atomic
Energy Agency believes Iran has carried
out extensive nuclear weapons-related
activities — that the regime has insis-
tently shielded from international view.
A "comprehensive solution" would
require Iran to come clean. It would dis-
prove the regime's insistent contention
that it has always acted in good faith
and has been the innocent
victim of American and
Zionist plots. It would show
the regime to have lied to its
own people. It would expose
the duplicity of its leaders'
claims never to have sought
the bomb.
The Iranian regime has
always done everything in its
power to avoid that moment
of reckoning. And the U.S.
has now let if off the hook.
Arguing Over Terms
The Iranians can be utterly relied upon
to spend the next six months, and a
whole lot longer, arguing over the terms
of the interim deal, pushing their own
interpretations of what's been agreed,
while seeking every means to further
ease the economic pressure they're
under.
As Emily Landau, an expert on nucle-
ar proliferation at Tel Aviv University's
Institute for National Security Studies
think tank, notes: The seeds of years
of potential disagreement have already
been sown in that there doesn't even
appear to be an agreed text of the
interim deal. Iran and the White House
have released different versions, with
significant differences.
Until Nov. 24, the international com-
munity was telling Iran: You want sanc-
tions relief? Then tell us the truth about
your nuclear weapons program and
start dismantling it. As of Nov. 24, the
international community is telling Iran:
We're giving you limited sanctions relief,
and we want you to start telling us the
truth about your nuclear weapons pro-
gram further on down the road.
It's not going to work. The U.S. has
let Iran off the hook. The United States
didn't merely blink in Geneva. It closed
its eyes. ❑
I
David Sachs
Senior Copy Editor
T
he P5+1 interim agreement
with Iran, negotiated by U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry
provides for inspections, easing of
sanctions and setting a six-month
period to reach a final pact to limit
Iran's nuclear weapons capacity. (The
P5+1 countries include the perma-
nent members of the United Nations
Security Council — the United States,
United Kingdom, France, Russia and
China — plus Germany.)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was reportedly "extremely
angered" with the agreement and felt
betrayed by President Barack Obama.
In this country, the agreement has
received some praise and much skep-
ticism.
The same is true among local offi-
cials and activists.
Sen. Carl Levin
U.S. Sen. Carl Levin
(D-Mich.), chair of
the Senate Armed
Services Committee,
supports the agree-
ment. His statement
said:
"I support the
interim deal with Iran. It is a realistic,
practical way to freeze Iran's nuclear
program for six months while we seek
a long-range diplomatic end to Iran's
nuclear weapon ambition.
"And it is another example of the
value of tough sanctions backed by a
broad international coalition.
"There is no harm in testing Iran's
willingness because a freeze and a
partial roll-back of Iran's nuclear
energy activities is a bigger plus for
us and the world than the release of
$7 billion to Iran from its own assets,
particularly since twice that amount
of Iran's oil revenue will be added to
Iran's frozen asset pile during that six-
month period.
"If there is no final deal at the end
of six months, the interim deal will
expire because it is not by its terms a
final deal. And if Iran does not con-
sent to a comprehensive agreement
that ensures it cannot acquire a nucle-
ar weapon, there is a broad consensus
in Congress to impose even tougher
sanctions."
Kari Alterman
Kari Alterman,
regional director of
American Jewish
Committee, Detroit,
expressed support
for the pact, but with
several cautionary
provisos:
"A diplomatic solution to prevent
Iran from achieving nuclear-weapons
capability is preferable, and thus we
greatly appreciate what the U.S. and
the other P5+1 nations announced
in Geneva. But, there are reasons to
remain cautious and concerned, given
Iran's longstanding posture of deceit
and defiance toward the U.N., the IAEA
and the global community.
"The P5+1 will need to be unwaver-
ingly vigilant as the interim six-month
agreement is implemented. Will
Iran use this agreement as simply an
opportunity to gain some sanctions
relief while continuing down a nuclear-
weapons path, or will it fulfill promises
to use nuclear facilities only for peace-
ful purposes?
"The American Jewish Committee has
met with diplomats around the globe
for years, pointing out that a nuclear-
armed Iran would threaten not only the
entire Middle East, but also the world.
The Geneva agreement does not miti-
gate that threat. Preventing Iran from
gaining the capacity to develop nuclear
weapons must remain a core commit-
ment of the international community.
"Additionally, the agreement does
not address other concerns, including
Iran's support for terrorism, Hezbollah
and the Assad regime in Syria. And it
does not call for a cessation of demon-
izing Israel or call attention to Iran's
horrific human rights record:'
Allan Gale
Allan Gale, asso-
ciate director,
Jewish Community
Relations Council of
Metropolitan Detroit,
cites worrying aspects
of the agreement:
"For several years now, the Jewish
Community Relations Council of
Metropolitan Detroit has worked with
JCRCs throughout the U.S. in a coordi-
nated campaign by the JCRC's national
umbrella — the Jewish Council for
Public Affairs — to argue for a world-