How shall we think of the Iran deal? One powerful measure is how such deals have worked in the past.
The history of deals by Western democratic countries with radical regimes like Iran is sobering. The 1973 Paris Peace Accord with North Vietnam, instead of leading to peaceful reunification, led to a North Vietnamese conquest of South Vietnam in 1975. The 1994 Framework Agreement with Communist North Korea, guaranteed in President Clinton’s words to end Pyongyang’s gaining nuclear weapons, led to North Korea obtaining nuclear weapons
It has been dangerous to ignore the threatening words of radical regimes. Everyone ignored Il Duce (Mussolini) when he called for rebuilding the Roman Empire until Italian troops moved into North Africa to support the Afrika Korps. When North Korea spoke of forcibly reunifying Korea, the United States responded by withdrawing its forces from South Korea in 1949 and the next year North Korean forces invaded South Korea.
By contrast, when the Senate rejected the SALT Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, both were later strengthened and improved.
And so it is imperative to pay attention when the Grand Ayatollah, after the Iran deal was signed, called for “death to the United States and Israel” and tweeted a graphic of a gun pointed at Obama’s head. His radical Islamic fundamentalism has been reinforced by the nuclear deal that gives Iran $100 billion to $150 billion for signing the treaty. This windfall will strengthen the hold of the radical fundamentalists over the reformists at home and will reinforce Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, as well as Shiite militias in Yemen and Iraq.
The Iranian nuclear threat is felt strongly by our Middle Eastern allies — Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Israel. All the Sunni states are likely to go nuclear in the next decade, which will lead to a significant chance of accidental or deliberate nuclear war in the region.
Last week, the adviser to the Grand Ayatollah said that under no conditions would Iran allow any inspection of military bases. If this holds true, Iran can continue to develop the nuclear infrastructure to support a robust nuclear weapons program. But, even worse is the long Iranian record of violating over a dozen U.N. resolutions and agreements and secretly building vital bases at Nantanz and Fordo. With 640,000 square miles of territory, Iran can easily continue its history of hiding illegal infrastructure work.
Iran, which is only a couple of months away from having a nuclear bomb, could do so at its leisure. Even worse, it could develop ICBMs within eight years legally and within much less time illegally. The technology is 60 years old and Iran works well with North Korea and Russia.
The benefits are great for Iran up front and the likelihood that it will break the agreement, especially with Russia and China in tow, is also strong. This would echo what radical countries before have done so often.
What is the alternative? Harder sanctions work. Even the current sanctions have left Iran working for decades on getting a bomb. Military threats work. Iran slowed or stopped its nuclear program in 2003 after the American army took Baghdad. A demonstration of Western naval power in the Persian Gulf would send a message that even Tehran would understand. The threat of military force is much better than the reality of its use.
Iran is not a superpower like the Soviet Union with a gross national product 50 percent of the American GNP, 2,000 strategic nuclear weapons and the ICBMs to deliver them. Rather, Iran is a weak Third World country whose GNP ($400 billion) is barely 2 percent of American GNP, lacks nuclear weapons and ICBMs or a Silicon Valley.
The alternative is clear. Access to Iranian nuclear facilities must be anywhere, anytime. Iran’s past development of nuclear capabilities, in direct violation of a number of U.N. resolutions, must be explained. Sanction relief cannot be immediate but must come gradually as Iran performs the tasks to which it has agreed. The major nuclear facilities, such as Natanz, Fordo and Arak, need to be demolished or reconfigured. Iran must stop being the world’s leading terrorist state. It must give up its ICBM program, useful only for delivering nuclear weapons. Iran must subject itself to real inspections of the nuclear program and ICBM programs. Without this, the future of the Middle East is grim.
In short, this deal is overwhelmingly tilted in favor of a weak, radical Third World power hostile to Western values and democracy. The time is late, but not too late. Nearly all our friends in the Middle East are terrified by the deal, as is the majority of the American public, which opposes it.
Congress needs to act in order to build the kind of 21st century order of peace and democracy from which we can all benefit. Unfortunately, if Congress does not reject this deal, it’s likely to usher in a new nuclear century.
Jonathan Adelman is a professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
