Despite overwhelming opposition, Republicans in Congress failed to derail the Iran nuclear agreement. The accord seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. Although opponents have argued vociferously that the agreement is a “bad deal,” most experts in the field and even some leading conservatives endorsed it.
Before Barack Obama took office, Iran was making great strides toward building a nuclear weapon.
For years, the United States along with the international community has made it clear to Iran that it should not pursue a nuclear program.
The U.S. and the other major powers rightly believe that if Iran succeeds in getting these dangerous weapons, such acquisition would inexorably lead to a nuclear arm race in an already unstable region.
A nuclear-armed Iran could well prompt Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt to establish their own nuclear program.
To stop Iran, the United States faces two choices: engage in diplomacy or go to war. Many argued that aerial bombings of its nuclear infrastructure not only would further inflame the region but would delay not prevent Iran from building nuclear bombs.
Iran has built a vast nuclear infrastructure; it also enriched uranium, the key ingredient in building a bomb.
The basic feature of the deal is the following: Iran agrees to scale back significantly its nuclear infrastructure and gives up most of its already enriched uranium. Equally important, Iran would be subjected to aggressive inspection for close to 20 years. In exchange, the international community, particularly the U.S., would lift economic sanctions that that have severely damaged Iran’s economy. If Iran, however, violates any part of the deal, the crippling sanctions would be restored.
According to many experts, the deal would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Calling it a “strong, long term and verifiable agreement,” more than 70 nuclear nonproliferation experts in a joint statement threw their support behind the deal.
Although there is unanimity among congressional republicans in their opposition to the deal, some influential conservatives have come out in support. Former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations, Richard Lugar and former National Security Advisor to George H. W. Bush, Brent Scowcroft are two prominent examples.
In his endorsement of the deal, Lugar pointed out “Rejection of the agreement would severely undermine the U.S. role as a leader and reliable partner around the globe. If Washington walks away from this hard-fought multilateral agreement, its dependability would likely be doubted for decades.”
Similarly, Scowcroft noted that if the U.S. rejects the negotiated agreement it “would be an abdication of America’s unique role and responsibility, incurring justified dismay among our allies and friends”
In a region that has been fraught with tension and marred by violence as well as suffering, the deal is the most effective way not only to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state but to avert another disastrous war in the Middle East.