Here’s what the critics of the Iran nuclear deal that still might be worked out have right: It’s not the deal we wanted. In fact, if you focus (as the critics do) only on what it wouldn’t achieve rather than on what it would, it’s a dud.
But here’s what they have wrong: For all its shortcomings, this deal would still be superior to no deal at all for the security of the United States and its allies, from Israel to Saudi Arabia. Pull out whatever clichés you like: The glass is half full rather than half empty. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Half a loaf is better than none.
What are these critics thinking? That by declining an imperfect deal, we’d be punishing the Iranians who would, in turn, buckle and backtrack and give us everything we want?
I’ve got news for those critics: You’re dreaming.
The people of Iran aren’t soft. From the citizens I watched decades ago as they threw themselves into the bullets of their government during the Iranian revolution, to the soldiers I saw in hand-to-hand combat during the primitive eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war, to the inmates I met who tolerated torture in their country’s brutal prisons, to the refugees I’ve known who trekked across deserts to escape persecution, these people can endure punishment.
Sure, Iran’s leaders would love it if we lifted all our sanctions against them, and they’d be tens of billions of dollars richer. But money is not the root of all evil, at least not in Iran. Their policies also are rooted in ideology and Islam, historical rivalries and regional power, and nationalistic pride.
Of course, some American critics believe the Iranians eventually would dial back their nuclear program not only because of stressful sanctions but also because they know that ultimately we might resort to a military solution. The problem with that argument is there is no military “solution.” There is only the military “option,” and there are a couple of reasons why that wouldn’t win us what we want.
First, while the facilities we have here at home to produce nuclear weapons were built beginning back in the 1950s and are mainly above ground, Iran’s nuclear facilities were built in the modern era of bunker-buster bombs. According to intelligence analysts, they are believed to be buried beyond our ability to destroy them.
Second, building the bomb from cradle to grave is a multistep process: there’s design, enrichment, production, parts, testing and storage, not to mention the entirely separate issue of manufacturing and maintaining delivery systems — missiles — that can tolerate the weight and heat of a nuclear device.
In the U.S., we have done these things at a variety of locations, each playing a different part in the process, like Oak Ridge in Tennessee, Savannah River in South Carolina, and our own Rocky Flats plant northwest of Denver, where the weapons’ plutonium triggers were produced.
In Iran, we know where some of these facilities are, but not all of them. So just how effective would a military assault actually be? That is open to argument, but we must accept that our record of shock-and-awe isn’t perfect.
Last week, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a piece headlined, “The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history.” He wrote, “With every concession (to Iran), Obama and Kerry made clear they were desperate for a deal. And they will get it. Obama will get his ‘legacy.’ Kerry will get his Nobel. And Iran will get the bomb.”
And without a deal? Simple. Instead of buying us time — during which we could keep at least half an eye on Iran’s bomb-building abilities — we would have no eye at all, and the Islamic Republic of Iran could build the bomb that much sooner. Which almost inevitably would lead to nuclear arms in the hands of its Islamic rivals in almost every direction.
And this would make us safer?
Greg Dobbs of Evergreen was a correspondent for ABC News for 23 years, then for HDNet television’s “World Report.”
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
