A little more than two years ago I published a letter chastising Congressional opponents agitating against ratification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, reached in Vienna on July 14, 2015 between Iran, China, France, Russia, United kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union. The political push-back reached a fevered pitch, even bringing Israel's prime minister to Washington to argue against it before Congress. My take on the conversation back then was that ignorance permeated the dialogue. Steadily increasing sanctions dating back to 1979, enhanced in 2006, after which they were also supported by Russia and China, had not resulted in slowing down Iran's nuclear enrichment program. In fact, by 2015 Iran was only 6 months away from developing the capability to field a nuclear weapon. Sanctions had already begun to unravel. This was a multi-lateral agreement. Our participation was not essential, although it did give the arrangement significantly greater emphasis.
Iran essentially agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges allowed to enrich uranium by 75% over a period of 10 years, while committing to not enrich uranium at a level sufficient to build a nuclear bomb for 15 years. Its nuclear reactor would also stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency became the organization charged with insuring compliance. During the past two years most of the original opponents of this deal came around to agree that this narrow nuclear-focused agreement ultimately benefitted the region notwithstanding Iran's continued aggressive behavior in other ways.
The facts have not changed. The IAEA, all non-U.S. signatories, and our own cabinet members agree that Iran remains in full compliance with the agreement. Ehud Barak, former prime minister and defense minister of Israel, known for his hawkish views on Iran, agreed that this nuclear agreement, being a "done deal," had been beneficial both to Israel's security and to reducing the volatility in the region. He referred to it as a "bad deal, but necessary."
Enter our 45th president. On October 13 Donald Trump announced that he, contrary to the advice of all relevant, intelligent, members of his administration, would not certify Iran's compliance with the agreement, something he by law is required to do every 90 days. While asserting that he knew better than anyone else, but showing little or no understanding of the content of the deal, he gave Congress 60 days to re-impose the sanctions that were lifted in exchange for Iran to cap its nuclear activities, or do nothing. He has been adamant hat if Congress decided not to act he would terminate the agreement altogether. Although his staff attempted to put a positive spin on his announcement, this arrogant, ignorant, unilateral action could have serious consequences.
If hawks in Congress push through a law demanding further concessions, Iran may be provoked to abandon the deal, eject inspectors, and accelerate its nuclear program. Given their capability two years ago, it could likely produce a bomb within a relatively short period of time. Iran as an aggressive state without nuclear weapons in its perceived sphere of influence is, at best, annoying. Iran as an aggressive state with nuclear capacity is outright dangerous. It would escalate tensions in the Gulf and increase the risks to our military facilities in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt among others may also feel pressured to acquire a nuclear capability.
Britain, France, the European Union, Russia and China have already announced that they will continue to support the agreement as written. They deplored Trump's move as unwarranted and dangerously destabilizing. Our relationship with China may be affected as well, since the latter's attempt to mediate between us and North Korea becomes increasingly more difficult. Pyongyang will have even fewer reasons to negotiate an agreement with us when it recognizes that we lack credibility, and could walk away from it whenever we want to. As a consequence, we could find ourselves fighting nuclear antagonists on two fronts.
Since his inauguration, we have become aware that President Trump shoots from the hip and makes a point of ignoring the advice of seasoned, rational people. We already exited the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and the Paris Climate Accord. We recently announced that we would exit UNESCO, and we are soon expected to leave NAFTA. Few of these moves apparently involved intelligent dialogue with stake holders. During an interview with Megyn Kelly last year Mr. Trump claimed that he was too busy to bother reading books, insisting he read passages, or sometimes chapters. John Meacham, accomplished biographer of numerous presidents, observed that "Trump came to the office warped by self-absorption, conceit, and a narcissistic certitude that he is always right while the rest of the world, unless it is busy flattering him, is wrong, even hostile." (John Meacham, "The Strength of Humility," Vanity Fair, October, 2017.) His bellicose rants designed to antagonize North Korea, and his imminent decision to exit the Iran Deal are conceived in a mindset of that same narcissistic arrogance and evident ignorance that is not just dangerous, it could kill us.
No wonder Congress is considering legislation that would bar the president from launching a first strike without a declaration from Congress. As things stand now, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 gives the president sole control. He could unleash the apocalyptic force of the American nuclear arsenal on a whim, within minutes.
God help us!
No comments:
Post a Comment