Secretaries Jack Lew, Ernest Moniz and John Kerry defend the JCPOA before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

AIPAC recently issued a memorandum to congressional members and staff with respect to the future of the Iran sanctions regime should Congress reject the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  This memorandum notes that, if a joint resolution of disapproval for the JCPOA were to be passed by both houses of Congress and President Obama’s inevitable veto overridden by a two-thirds vote again of both houses, the U.S. sanctions regime would remain legally in place.  It is on this basis that AIPAC argues there will be no deterioration of the international sanctions regime facing Iran, at least until it completes the nuclear steps it committed to take in the JCPOA.  Consequently, AIPAC considers there will be ample time to renegotiate the text of the JCPOA before Iran has finished its work.

AIPAC is certainly correct that U.S. sanctions can be maintained as a matter of law should Congress reject the JCPOA.  But, it is there that AIPAC’s analysis parts company with several important realities.

 

Maintaining the sanctions regime if the JCPOA falls apart is about more than the letter of U.S. law.

AIPAC’s main argument appears to be that since U.S. law will not change if the JCPOA is rejected, we have nothing to fear from a post-JCPOA-rejection world.  This assertion ignores the fundamental reality that the U.S. sanctions with teeth require foreign participation in order to work.  This is because U.S. law is structured to present an “us or them” choice to international businesses and banks therefore have to elect to follow the U.S. lead (and U.S. law) in order to prevent transactions from taking place with Iran.

Certainly, as AIPAC has noted, there is fear of the consequences of U.S. sanctions on foreign businesses to motivate them.  No one likes paying multi-billion dollar fines and many of the most important international corporations and financial institutions will shy away from doing business with Iran until the status of U.S. sanctions is resolved.  But, cooperation with U.S. sanctions has also been about a common aim and pursuit by the governments of those corporations and banks.  European, East Asian, and Indian firms have declined to do business in Iran – even if their exposure to U.S. sanctions was limited – because there was a common understanding that sanctions were needed to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.  This common sense of purpose will be lost if the United States walks away from the JCPOA.  Instead, the only motivating force will be the threat of U.S. penalties.  But, for those without U.S. exposure – or prepared to risk it – this may not be enough to stop business with Iran.

Moreover, foreign governments can take steps to preclude corporate cooperation with U.S. sanctions.  AIPAC takes it as a given that if the U.S. Congress passes new sanctions, foreign cooperation is assured.  But, let us remember a time in which there was a significant difference between the United States and Europe on Iran sanctions: 1996’s Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which prompted – among other things – passage of European legislation that explicitly forbade companies from complying with U.S. law, deemed by the EU to be extraterritorial.  This law is still on the books, as is a European policy decision in 1997 to bring the United States to the World Trade Organization should it impose sanctions on a European company pursuant to ILSA.  Fortuitously, this situation has been avoided to date because of cooperation between the United States and EU.  But, should that cooperation lapse, this challenge could once again be met with infighting between the EU and United States, hardly a propitious scenario for building a unified diplomatic front to get a better nuclear deal.

 

Even with cooperation, there won’t be support for new sanctions.

Let us assume for a moment that rejection of JCPOA and resumption of U.S. sanctions does not lead to immediate legal conflict between the United States and its sanctioning partners.  This is still a far cry from an environment conducive to the imposition of new sanctions to strengthen the U.S. negotiating hand with Iran.

No one in the opposition camp has laid out a clear strategy for how to secure such pressure, other than to threaten the imposition of sanctions against our partners directly.  This is understandable, because there is no credible strategy for doing so.  The United States has secured cooperation with its sanctions efforts before on the basis of a plan to get a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue.  But, that plan would be largely out of the window as a result of the rejection of the JCPOA.

Skeptics doubtless would bristle at this idea, stridently noting that they only wish to “improve” the deal, not destroy it.  But, considering that AIPAC argued that the JCPOA could only be a good deal if it required “Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure and relinquish its uranium stockpile,”[1] it is unlikely that this is the kind of condition Iran could plausibly accept.  Other skeptics have also argued that the provision of sanctions relief is itself a problem because of the potential for destabilizing activities and terrorism being funded by Iran.  Taken together, the “improved” nuclear deal would require a wholesale rewrite, with terms involving the termination of Iran’s nuclear program and absence of sanctions relief until it has fully resolved any outstanding concerns with its regional foreign policy.

Such a deal would, of course, be to the U.S. advantage.  But, it is also thoroughly implausible and it is doubtful that U.S. partners (aside from Israel) would sign on to such a construct because it has no hope of being accepted by Iran.  It is worth noting, for example, that Russia and China have long maintained that Iran has a right under the NPT to an enrichment program and that during negotiations, Russia indicated that it would accept no language – even if Iran was amenable – that appeared to abridge this NPT right.  And, it is also worth noting that – though some have tried to suggest that it is merely Administration spin – the Ambassadors of the European-3 countries (France, Germany and the UK) have all apparently made it quite clear to interested Congressional interlocutors that they see no chance of resuming talks if Congress torpedoes the JCPOA.[2]

 

Radical, dramatic escalation of sanctions pressure would be necessary

It is unfortunate that the international community would probably not join willingly in an escalation of sanctions pressure against Iran because, if there is any hope of using sanctions to force Iranian nuclear capitulation, then it would have to come on the back of a such a massive escalation.

To be clear, I do not believe that more sanctions would force Iran to jettison its nuclear program.  Sensible, respected skeptics of the nuclear deal have agreed with this general conclusion (such as Juan Zarate during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 30[3]).  Moreover, the history of the Iranian nuclear experience is that when faced with new sanctions, Iran responds with its own escalation by installing thousands of new centrifuges.

But, assuming that sanctions could create such a scenario, then it certainly would not be with the tools in place to date.  Iran’s economy has rebounded from its recession in 2012-2013 that sanctions helped to create.  Iran’s economy is still weak and it requires comprehensive sanctions relief to truly recover.  But, this also suggests that keeping the sanctions at status quo levels would also not be enough to tip Iran back into crisis and certainly sufficient crisis so as to get Iran to go even farther past the redlines established for the negotiation by the Supreme Leader.

But, without international support, this would not be achievable.  The best that could be hoped for is spotty cooperation and compliance, and the use of penalties to punish those who transgress U.S. sanctions.  But, let us not forget that the imposition of sanctions penalties is itself an admission of failure: failure of the deterrence and prevention strategy that sanctions are actually meant to effectuate.  For penalties to be imposed, it means that the bad guys have gotten the materials, technology or money that was to be denied by sanctions.  Penalties being imposed are not victories – they are compensation for the victims.

Penalties also hurt the United States, both in short-term and long-term ways.  First and foremost, the imposition of sanctions against particular targets means that they cannot do business in the United States.  This does not matter when Iranian individuals and entities are involved.  But, it does when major international banks or corporations are.  Denying access to these institutions also means that U.S. persons cannot do business with them, harming U.S. economic competitiveness.  The argument that our economy is so large that it can sustain such damage only works if sanctions are imposed in a small-scale fashion.  But, if the United States were to threaten the imposition of sanctions on major foreign financial institutions – and go beyond penalties to the punishment of cutting off correspondent banking relationships, as several statutes require – we could find our own economic position suffering. Imagine, for example, a decision to impose such sanctions on major Chinese banks should China refuse to make significant reductions in its purchases of Iranian oil once the sanctions mandating reductions come back into place.   It is not just the Chinese businesses that would suffer but anyone who does business in China.  China is the U.S. second largest trading partner.  Combined with India, Japan and Korea (the top four importers of Iranian oil), and those we would have to threaten with sanctions account for a quarter of all U.S. international trade (according to June 2015 year-to-date data from the Census Bureau).[4]

Long-term, another demonstration of the risk of reliance on the U.S.-led international financial system would further incentivize moves away from it.  I have written about this extensively and the risk both to the U.S. economy and to the ability of the United States to use sanctions as a foreign policy tool.[5]  I’m not alone: JCPOA skeptics Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer similarly warned of the risk of alternative financial systems emerging and the threat this would pose to the United States from both financial and national security perspectives.[6]  It is this threat that Secretary Kerry was referencing in a recent interview when he said that the use of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency was at risk if the Iran deal were to be jettisoned.

 

And Iran is hardly likely to sit around waiting for more pressure

Even more fundamentally, AIPAC misses the boat when it suggests that Iran’s response to U.S. rejection of the JCPOA will be placid understanding and even continuation of its steps under the JCPOA (!) rather than an escalation of its nuclear program.  To be sure, Iran would seek to take advantage of the situation by holding steady with its nuclear activities provided the JPOA’s sanctions relief would remain in place; this would further its ability to sow dissention in the international community and poison the U.S. ability to get partners for maintaining, much less escalating, sanctions.

But, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) would ensure that is impossible.  The terms of that Act require the President to stop providing sanctions relief under the JPOA in addition to not moving forward with relief under the JCPOA.  This means that oil sanctions would once again be fully in-force, with significant reductions mandated every 180 days.  International oil prices suggest that such reductions would be possible without creating a market crisis, but it strains credulity to believe that China and India would undertake 20% reductions of their imports of Iranian crude oil in the aftermath of a U.S.-aborted nuclear deal.  And then, a real U.S. choice would be needed whether to impose sanctions on associated banks and oil companies – which would ironically free them to engage in however much oil they might wish to purchase from Iran, knowing that they face no further penalty – or to pass on such sanctions at the risk of hollowing out the sanctions regime.

In response to concerns that the resumption of this sanctions campaign would also prompt Iran to start installing thousands of centrifuges, enriching tons of uranium, and completing the Arak reactor (capable of producing 1-2 weapons worth of weapons-grade plutonium per year), some outside observers have suggested either that the President could use his “prosecutorial discretion” to not enforce the law vigorously or that he could rewrite U.S. law unilaterally with Executive Orders to keep providing sanctions relief.  No one in the Administration has made such a claim and it is doubtful they would, as this could prompt legal challenge and constitutional crisis…from which Iran would surely benefit.  Moreover, it is questionable logic to assert that a better deal is achievable while also arguing that, in order to keep the nuclear situation from escalating, the United States ought to hold back on sanctions enforcement.

 

Boiling things down

AIPAC is probably right that the international sanctions regime will not collapse on Day 1 if the JCPOA dies in the halls of the U.S. Congress.  Iran will have to evaluate what it chooses to do in response, as will U.S. partners.  But, at best, the sanctions regime will be mauled, having lost its credibility in the international community and place as part of a diplomatic endeavor.  The proposed alternative deals suggest either that the Iranians are just waiting to accept worse terms after the U.S. fumbles the ball or that far more pressure would be needed than the international market would likely bear.  Having lost its international credibility, the United States will be in no place to secure such international pressure on a voluntary basis and will face some important, unenviable real world problems as a result.  Iran will reap the rewards of U.S. diplomatic failure, either waiting out the sanctions campaign in its death throes or expanding its nuclear program to ensure that any future negotiation starts with a better Iranian bottom-line.  Either way, the United States (and its partners at greatest risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon) would be worse off.

 

[1]http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/One%20Pagers/Negotiating%20with%20Iran_5%20Requirements_Cover%20Sheet.pdf

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ambassadors-press-case-for-iran-nuclear-deal-in-congress/2015/08/06/9f46cae8-3c70-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-limitations-of-sanctions-on-iran/2015/08/03/3be62170-37a1-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

[4] https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/top/top1506yr.html

[5] https://gallery.mailchimp.com/20fec43d5e4f6bc717201530a/files/Issue_Brief_The_Future_of_Economic_Sanctions_in_a_Global_Economy_May_2015.pdf

[6] http://www.wsj.com/articles/mark-dubowitz-and-jonathan-schanzer-the-fragility-of-the-global-financial-order-1425423520

Richard Nephew is the Program Director, Economic Statecraft, Sanctions and Energy Markets, for the Center on Global Energy Policy. Nephew joined the Center February 1, 2015 directly from his role as Principal Deputy Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the Department of State, a position he held since February 2013. Nephew also served as the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran. From May 2011 to January 2013 Nephew served as the Director for Iran on the National Security Staff where he was responsible for managing a period of intense expansion of U.S. sanctions on Iran. Earlier in his career he served in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation at the State Department and in the Office of Nonproliferation and International Security at the Department of Energy. Nephew holds a Masters in Security Policy Studies and a Bachelors in International Affairs, both from The George Washington University.

From the standpoint of U.S. security, the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program announced on July 14 is a very good one. Iran consented to a significant rollback of its nuclear capacity and to a level of monitoring far exceeding any other country. The main goal of the U.S. and its partners has been met: Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon has been blocked.

Opponents of the deal have responded both by misrepresenting what the agreement actually entails, and by insisting upon a “better deal.” Before talks even concluded, critics attempted to set red lines in a number of areas. Some of these were clearly intended as poison pills, provisions that Iran would never agree to. Beyond that, however, the opposition is distorting what the deal actually accomplishes. Let’s examine some of those points.

CRITICS SAY: “This deal is dangerous because it fails to achieve ‘anytime, anywhere’ inspections… Inspections could require a 24-day approval process, giving Iran time to remove evidence of violations.”

THE FACTS: No country would ever agree to “anytime, anywhere” inspections, and opposition groups were well aware of this when they listed this “condition” and got some of their friends in Congress to parrot it for them. Its mere presence makes it abundantly clear that is not about opposing a “bad deal,” but rather opposing any deal, under any plausible conditions, no matter how good it is for American, or for that matter, Israeli security.

Iran’s declared nuclear facilities will be under 24/7 surveillance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). When requesting access to an undeclared but suspicious location, standard practice is to gain access with 24 hours’ notice, but the IAEA can request access in less than 2 hours in certain circumstances. If access is disputed by Iran, it could take up to 24 days for the question to be resolved by the mechanism laid out in the JCPOA, but it is likely to take significantly less time. 24 days, however is nowhere near enough time to remove evidence of virtually any nuclear experimentation. It takes decades before all traces of such work vanish.

CRITICS SAY: The deal “is unclear to what extent Iran must come clean on its prior nuclear work.”

THE FACTS: We know what Iran did in the past. Forcing a politically problematic admission from the Iranian leadership would threaten the deal for little or even no practical gains. We are already aware of the possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s prior work, the facilities they used and the supply chain they employed to stock their nuclear materials. It was not necessary to threaten the ability to reach an agreement over this issue.

CRITICS SAY: The deal would provide “immediate, rather than gradual, sanctions relief…Virtually all economic, financial and energy sanctions would disappear.”

THE FACTS: Sanctions will actually be phased, with some immediate relief for Iran and other sanctions that will be lifted after much longer periods of Iranian compliance. Sanctions that relate to Iran’s support for terrorism, its human rights record, and other weapons programs are completely unaffected by this agreement. Indeed, many opportunities for direct American business will remain covered by the sanctions.

CRITICS SAY: The deal legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program…It begins lifting key restrictions in eight years and “grants Iran virtual instant breakout time after 15 years.”

THE FACTS: Some of the deal’s provisions expire after 10 or 15 years, some 25 and some never expire. Iran has agreed to the Additional Protocol and that Protocol does not expire. With Iran’s commitment to the Additional Protocol, it has accepted the IAEA’s most intrusive model for safeguards and with the additional constraints in the JCPOA, it will have agreed to a higher level of monitoring than any other country in the world. By the time Iran can begin accumulating fissile materials, we will have had 10-15 years of monitoring Iran, including its supply chain. It will take Iran considerable time to then assemble a nuclear weapon if it intends to do so. Without a deal, Iran will reach that breakout capacity in just a few months.

CRITICS SAY: Iran will still have most of its nuclear infrastructure, and won’t have to dismantle any centrifuges or any nuclear facilities.

THE FACTS: Iran will be decommissioning more than 2/3 of all its centrifuges, and only using its more advanced units for research purposes. All centrifuges in use will be placed under 24/7 IAEA monitoring, and the IAEA will monitor the storage of the rest on the same 24/7 basis. Contrary to another opposition talking point, reinstalling the centrifuges is a very cumbersome process, so this limitation cannot be “easily reversed.” Iran will also pour concrete into the core of the Arak reactor, rendering it permanently unusable, and will convert its reactor at Fordow so it can only be used for research purposes. Its remaining facilities, particularly the Natanz reactor, will also be under constant IAEA monitoring.

CRITICS SAY: The deal does not account for Israel’s concerns and was agreed to despite Israel’s objections.

THE FACTS: Israel, and especially Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been saying for years that a nuclear-armed Iran must be prevented at all costs. This deal pushes Iran farther away from nuclear weapons capability than any other possible outcome by far. Netanyahu’s tactics in working against the deal have been criticized by many Israeli security experts. And, while many Israelis agree with Netanyahu that the deal is not good for Israel, Netanyahu’s confrontational behavior (which included leaks to international media that forced the United States to limit the information it shared with its close ally, as well as the infamous speech to Congress arranged behind the President’s back earlier this year) eliminated many of the opportunities Israel might have had to have a louder voice in the talks. While Israelis certainly have legitimate concerns about this deal, the possibility of a nuclear Iran in the near future has been eliminated while the United States has intensified its commitment to Israel’s security, as well as those of its other regional allies, in the wake of this agreement.

CRITICS SAY: This is a bad deal.

THE FACTS: This is a very good deal that includes Iranian concessions that would have been considered pie-in-the-sky optimism two years ago. Unprecedented monitoring, some of which will be permanent; a massive rollback in Iran’s current nuclear capability; a phased easing of nuclear-related sanctions only; a clear system for investigating suspect sites; and a clear mechanism for penalizing Iran for violations make this not only the best possible deal, but a very good one for the West by any standard.

The opposition knows this. That is why the talking points we have just examined range from being partial and misleading to outright falsehoods. The conditions they outlined throughout the process for what would constitute a “good deal” were always unrealistic and unattainable. Indeed, they seemed to be designed to eliminate any possibility of an agreement. That leads to the conclusion that nothing short of regime change would satisfy opponents of this deal.

The current deal may not be the most perfect solution imaginable, but it is a very good one that achieves its key goals for the U.S. That is not only because there are no viable alternatives to it (and there aren’t, as the utter lack of any other suggestions by the opposition proves), but because this is a triumph of diplomacy that resulted in a good deal for all concerned.

Download a PDF of this article here.

Find an addendum to this article here.

Professor Brent Sasley is an Associate Professor and Graduate Advisor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Texas at Arlington. He studies and teaches the politics of the Middle East and of Israel; the nature of identity formation; and decision-making processes. He is the author of The Cold War in the Middle East, 1950-1991. FMEP asked for his views on some of the current issues concerning Israeli and American policy.

Israel finally has its new governing coalition. The idea that the Zionist Union might join in a national unity government appears to be simmering, and while Benjamin Netanyahu might try to coax them in, for now Israel is going to have a right wing/religious coalition, with the center-right Kulanu representing the only moderate party. Given Netanyahu’s statements in the election regarding the two-state solution and the apparent absence of the Palestinian issue in both the election and the coalition talks, do you see any alternative for Mahmoud Abbas other than continuing to try to internationalize the issue, at the UN, the ICC and perhaps in Europe?

The narrow coalition does indeed appear to be comprised almost entirely of rightist and religious parties, with Kulanu representing the soft right. Moshe Kahlon’s interests in economic issues means his party is unlikely to pay much attention to settlement building or policy toward the West Bank and peace process. He might serve as a brake on some of Bayit Yehudi’s and Likud’s excesses, but otherwise his silence will serve to facilitate the continuation of the last two governments’ policies.

While Abbas’s own intransigence and fear of finally ending the conflict certainly plays a role in the failure of previous talks, the notion that the PA or Abbas have to do more to show interest in progress, and that if only they had, then Israel would have moved forward with the necessary concessions and agreements, is nonsense. An international legal effort (what some have called “lawfare”) to achieve statehood is not without precedent, including by the Zionist movement.

So if I’m Mahmoud Abbas, I don’t see much hope not only for serious talks, but for serious confidence-building measures such as curbing settlement activity outside the main blocs, ending the harsh rhetoric coming from Israel’s leaders, and distinguishing between Fatah/the PA and Hamas. It makes sense, then, for Abbas to continue working on the effort to change the international legal-diplomatic balance.

Let’s assume for the moment that the P5+1 and Iran do indeed conclude a deal similar to the one the White House described in the framework agreement. While lifting sanctions will give Iran the opportunity to expand its regional influence, a deal and an end of sanctions will also give the Americans, the Saudis and the other Arab states near the Gulf the opportunity to engage Iran and possibly open dialogue to help the whole Middle East start to climb back from the turmoil that has engulfed it in recent years. How do you view a post-nuclear-standoff future in the region and how do you think Israel might respond if there is increased dialogue with Iran?

It is difficult to say what the regional effects and what Israel’s reaction will be, because the success and aftermath of the agreement are both contingent on several other factors. I do not share the optimism that an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program will generate greater cooperation between Iran and the United States or will reduce Iranian ambitions in the Middle East. The Iranian regime’s survival is partly dependent on maintaining its commitment to the revolution. Yet legitimacy based on revolutionary impulses requires that one always strive to enhance or expand that revolution. Normalization of Iran in the region would undermine those impulses, and thus serves as a threat to the regime.

For its part, Israel very much fears Iranian normalization, but I think the fear is overstated, as I mentioned. It’s likely there will be efforts to maintain and expand dialogue between Washington and Tehran, and perhaps other regional states as well. This would be a direct threat to Israel’s position in the region, which in recent years has benefitted from the Sunni Arab states’ competition with and hostility toward Iran. Jerusalem would benefit greatly from getting ahead of the possibility of growing Iranian integration, however unlikely. It can do so by making serious efforts to reduce its presence in the West Bank, and respond constructively to the Arab Peace Initiative, which remains on the table.

Finally, given your responses to the first two questions, and given not only the current tense atmosphere between Obama and Netanyahu but also the new partisan divide over Israel (which AIPAC is desperately trying to reverse while groups like the RJC are working hard to expand it), how do you see the future of US-Israel relations going? We know security cooperation will be unaffected, but what about the “special relationship,” the cover the US gives Israel in the international arena, and other such aspects? In particular, I’d like to know how you see this going in the event of a new Clinton White House.

I’ve long argued that the relationship is far stronger than it seems on the basis of personal tensions between Obama and Netanyahu. These personal problems make the big policy discussions harder, but the relationship is rooted in a variety of other factors—strategic cooperation, shared cultural identity, similar political systems, public sympathy—that have and will overcome the individual-level problems because they are so routinized.

That said, it’s clear that the U.S. and Israel have increasingly divergent perceptions about international politics and put emphasis on different priorities. The settlement enterprise has expanded over time, across all Israeli governments. Netanyahu might have increased building in more isolated areas, but he’s still only the latest representation of a decades-long process. Yet settlements are increasingly problematic for Western publics and countries, including the United States. Similarly, Israel continues to hold a regional perspective on the Iranian nuclear program, the Arab uprisings, conventional threats to the Jewish state, and so on, while the United States has been trying to shift its attention to other issues by adopting a more global perspective.

In both cases, while the Obama Administration has certainly pushed harder for such changes, it seems that American foreign policy has been slowly moving in this direction anyway, partly pushed by external systemic forces. This is not to say that Washington will turn away from the Middle East—even Barack Obama couldn’t, as much as he tried. But if the White House’s attention is further diffused across the globe, Israel’s regional concerns will matter less.

It’s hard to know what a Hillary Clinton White House would do. I suspect the problem of settlements would remain a thorn in the personal relationship with Netanyahu. More broadly, it’s very possible the days of a Democratic president maintaining a Bill Clinton-style closeness with an Israeli leader could well be over. Much also depends on who becomes the next prime minister of Israel, if the current government has only a brief time in office. It’s also possible that this Netanyahu government limps along for a few years, kept in power but also constrained by its domestic political struggles, and therefore doesn’t engage in major policy changes but rather continues along the current path. This will make it harder for Clinton to challenge Netanyahu on the big policy questions.

You can download a PDF version of this article here.

The Framework Agreement between the P5+1 and Iran announced on April 2[1] was an important step toward ending the long standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. Not surprisingly, it has already come under fierce attack by hawks in Washington and Iran.

On the U.S. side, opposition to the deal is rooted in a desire to see Iran’s complete capitulation, if need be at gunpoint. But negotiation requires compromise; and compromise, by definition, means no one gets exactly what they want.

Ultimately, here are the questions at hand: Can a deal based on this framework prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Will the U.S. and its allies be more secure because of it? The answer to both is yes.

While some difficult details still need to be worked out, nuclear experts and analysts have overwhelmingly praised the April 2 framework[2] as establishing a strong basis for reaching a final agreement. The fact is the case against the framework is very weak. Because opponents of a deal with Iran understand that they cannot sell a stance that risks another war in the Middle East, they have backed off total opposition and stated that what they want is a “better deal.” Insisting on this better deal, however, makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and would very likely scuttle negotiations — leaving the U.S. and its allies in a far worse position to address the problem.

Because the Iranian concessions were much stronger than previously rumored, opponents are trying to build opposition by selecting pieces out of context or suggesting dubious interpretations.

The American –Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) opposes the framework and backs a position articulated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other critics of diplomacy with Iran.  They recently issued[3] an information sheet identifying seven key concerns about the April 2 framework.

Let’s break them down one by one.

Dismantlement: “Apart from the core at Arak, Iran will not dismantle its nuclear infrastructure.”

That’s true. What AIPAC fails to mention is what the agreement does include: Iran has agreed to convert its facility at Fordow so it can no longer be used to enrich uranium. Enrichment will only occur at one site, Natanz, and even there, Iran will only enrich uranium to 3.75% (90% is the standard for weapons-grade uranium). Iran also agrees not to build any new enrichment facilities for 15 years. And importantly, all of what remains will be open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Centrifuges: “Iran will be allowed to operate over 6,000 centrifuges, and can continue research and development on more advanced centrifuge models.”

At Iran’s one enrichment facility, it will only use 5,060 old-model centrifuges. That is less than one-third of the number of centrifuges (some 19,000) they have today, many of which are newer and more efficient, and can enrich uranium much faster, than the ones Iran will now be using exclusively for the next ten years. Another 944 centrifuges will be used for research and development, not for enrichment, and for this they can use more up-to-date centrifuges. This represents an enormous reduction from the current situation. It also represents a huge walk back from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s previous public demands[4] on Iran’s enrichment capacity.

Secret Enrichment Site: “Iran will not close its illicit underground facility at Fordow, and will be allowed to develop enrichment technology.”

True, Iran won’t close the Fordow facility. But it will convert it to a research center. The research performed there cannot be associated with uranium enrichment for the next 15 years, nor will Iran have any fissile material there for that same period. And, again, adherence isn’t based on trust, it’s based on verification. The facility will be closely monitored by the IAEA.

It’s also important to note that, in exchange for the face-saving measure of keeping the Fordow facility open, Iran actually agreed to reduce its uranium enrichment capacity even further – from 6000 to 5000 centrifuges.

Inspections: “It is unclear if inspectors will have access to all suspect nuclear sites.”

In fact, this is perhaps the clearest, most detailed part of the Framework Agreement. The Agreement specifically states that Iran agrees to grant access to all nuclear facilities. Inspectors will also have access to Iran’s supply chain for materials to ensure that Iran cannot easily violate the agreement. Inspectors will have access to uranium mines, and “…continuous surveillance at uranium mills, where Iran produces yellowcake, for 25 years.” Additionally:

• Continuous surveillance of Iran’s facilities for the manufacture of centrifuges will be in place for 20 years;
• Supply of certain nuclear-related materials will be monitored and approved on a case-by-case basis;
• Iran agreed to implement the Additional Protocol, which requires it to provide unprecedented access to its nuclear program, something the United States and its allies have been demanding for years;
• Iran also agreed to grant access to “suspicious sites,” should there be any suspicion that they are clandestinely producing any of the materials required for weapons.

There is nothing unclear here. This agreement does not give carte blanche to inspectors to go anywhere they want in Iran, any time they want. That is what some opponents of a negotiated deal with Iran have been demanding, but no country would ever agree to such a condition. The bottom line is that, according to the framework, inspectors will have unprecedented access to all of Iran’s nuclear sites as well as any other sites where there are substantive suspicions that violations of the agreement have taken place.

Possible Military Dimensions: “The proposed framework is ambiguous about how and when Iran will address its past weaponization efforts.”

Indeed, this is a crucial issue, and the framework only says that “Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns.” Legitimate questions about Iran’s past weapons-related work exist based on its record of secrecy, and the international community has a right to expect that these questions will be satisfactorily addressed.

However, we must keep in mind that this is a difficult issue for Iran. The Iranians are well aware that they will have to detail at least some of their covert channels and activities in order to create sufficient confidence in the eventual deal. On the other hand, the Iranian Supreme Leader has repeatedly stated not only that Iran has never pursued a nuclear weapon, but that nuclear weapons are forbidden in Islam. The Iranian government must strike a balance between reversing their position and saving face.

Undoubtedly, the P5+1 and Iran are each aware of these issues for the other, and in fact, the very ambiguity on this point in the framework demonstrates that they understand the gravity of the matter. The fact that Iran agreed to address the IAEA’s concerns demonstrates that Iran understands the need for disclosure regarding its past activities. It also implies that the P5+1 recognize the difficulties Iran faces in doing so. That is a promising basis for the ongoing negotiations, where the modalities of Iranian disclosure can be worked out.

Fortunately, we don’t need to merely trust that the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program—past, present, and future – are being addressed. Even under the publicly revealed aspects of the framework, the international community will have unprecedented transparency at every stage of Iran’s nuclear supply and development chain, creating a multilayered system of tripwires that will sound the alarm should Iran try to sneak toward a nuclear weapon.

Sanctions: “It is uncertain how quickly sanctions would be lifted over time, or re-imposed if Iran violates an agreement.”

It is true that there is some ambiguity about how these mechanisms would work. However, remember that the current agreement is a framework, not a final deal. That’s why negotiations continue through the end of June. The framework makes it clear that U.S. and E.U. sanctions connected to the nuclear issue will be lifted once the IAEA verifies that “…Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps.” Sanctions return if, after that, Iran fails to maintain compliance.

Prior UN Security Council resolutions will be replaced with a new one endorsing the agreement and creating the verification mechanisms and an adjudication process to address disputes over compliance. Again, there’s a reason it’s called a “framework.”

Duration: “When nuclear restrictions are lifted in 10-15 years, Iran could have the capacity to produce weapons-grade uranium for a bomb within days.”

What’s more likely is that Iran would need considerably more time to assemble the materials and reassemble the infrastructure necessary to do this. Moreover, as we have seen, Iran agreed to enhanced inspections for a much longer period of time, and even after that, it would still be a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject to the inspection requirements in that agreement (with inspectors having had over a decade of unprecedented access to every aspect of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure). It would be exceedingly difficult for Iran to rush to a bomb as soon as the agreement expired without anyone noticing. This kind of statement is intended to frighten people into opposing the deal. It is strictly true, but has little connection to reality.

In conclusion, a close examination of the arguments against the April 2 framework shows them to be, at best, threadbare. “The individuals who say that this deal provides a pathway for Iran to a bomb are being wholly disingenuous, in my view, if they know the facts and understand what is required for a program,” CIA Director John Brennan said[5]. “I certainly am pleasantly surprised that the Iranians have agreed to so much here.” Brennan’s view has been echoed[6] by other intelligence and military officials, including Israelis and Americans[7].

It is true that an agreement with Iran carries some risk. But moving on without a deal is riskier by far. It would mean no inspections, no restrictions on Iran’s actions, increasing tensions, and quite possibly, a series of escalations toward another Middle East war.  The April 2 framework represents the best option for addressing this challenge, and for advancing the shared security of the U.S., its allies and partners in the region.

[1] Gordon, Michael R. and Sanger, David E. Iran Agrees to a Detailed Nuclear Outline, First Step Toward a Wider Deal, New York Times, April 2, 2015, Web April 14, 2015

[2] Toosi, Nahal and Nather, David, The Iran deal’s cheerleaders, Politico, April 6, 2015, Web April 14, 2015

[3] AIPAC, What’s the Deal? April 2015, Web April 14, 2015

[4] Dehghan, Saeed Kamali and Borger, Julian, Iran needs greater uranium enrichment capacity, says Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, The Guardian, July 8, 2014, Web April 14, 2015

[5] Malone, Scott, Critics of Iran nuclear deal ‘disingenuous,’ CIA’s Brennan says, Reuters, April 7, 2015 Web April 14, 2015

[6] Caspit, Ben, Former Israeli General Says Iran Deal‎ Isn’t a Bad Agreement, US News and World Report, April 6, 2014, Web April 14, 2015

[7] Singh, Vikram,  Katulis, Brian, deLeon, Rudy,  Lang, Hardin, Korb, Lawrence J., Brom, Shlomo, and Sofer, Ken, Getting to a Final Agreement: Nuclear Negotiations with Iran and Congressional Action, Center for American Progress, April 13, 2014, Web April 14, 2014