Centre Daily Times Logo

Trudy Rubin: Four rules to judge eany deal on Iran nukes | Centre Daily Times

×
  • E-edition
  • Home
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Archives
    • Contact Us
    • Plus
    • eEdition
    • Newsletters
    • Subscribe
    • About Us
    • Local
    • Penn State
    • Sandusky Scandal
    • Communities
    • Crime
    • Business
    • Education
    • Politics
    • Public Records
    • State
    • Nation/World
    • Weird News
    • Sports
    • College
    • Golf
    • High School
    • MLB
    • Motorsports
    • NFL
    • NHL
    • Outdoors
    • Penn State
    • State College Spikes
    • Politics
    • Elections
    • PSU Sports
    • PSU Football
    • PSU Basketball
    • PSU Baseball
    • PSU Hockey
    • PSU Soccer
    • PSU Volleyball
    • PSU Wrestling
    • Nittany Lines Blog
  • Penn State Football
    • Living
    • Announcements
    • Family Pages
    • Eat, Play, Live
    • Home & Garden
    • Entertainment
    • Weekender
    • Comics
    • Games & Puzzles
    • Celebrities
    • Horoscopes
    • Movie News & Reviews
    • Music
    • TV
    • Opinion
    • Editorial Cartoons
    • Submit a Letter
  • Obituaries

  • Classifieds
  • Jobs
  • Cars
  • Homes
  • Place An Ad
  • Mobile & Apps

Opinion

Trudy Rubin: Four rules to judge eany deal on Iran nukes

By Trudy Rubin

    ORDER REPRINT →

March 28, 2015 10:54 PM

If you’re confused about whether a nuclear deal with Iran would be good for America — or for Israel — join the club. The club, that is, of folks who are debating the benefits of a deal versus the costs.

For unyielding critics of any deal, especially in Congress, such analysis is irrelevant. Their minds are made up — as negotiations with Iran wind toward a March 31 target date for a framework accord on curbing its nuclear program. They are convinced, as is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that Iran is an existential threat to Israel and that no deal can be good. Or they are ready to damn any deal President Barack Obama would endorse.

But for the rest of us, such a debate is essential. Even those who support a deal in principle, myself included, have deep qualms. And Obama’s weak Mideast policy raises questions about how hard a bargain he’ll drive.

So how can an ordinary citizen evaluate a draft accord that may (or may not) be reached soon? Let me suggest four rules to help you make up your mind.

SIGN UP

Sign Up and Save

Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

#ReadLocal

Rule One: The risks of a deal must be weighed against the steep costs of no deal. (Keep this rule in mind when evaluating the terms of any deal.)

If negotiations collapse, Iran will resume its program of nuclear enrichment, which has essentially been frozen under an interim accord. Sanctions forced Iran to the table, but they did not prevent Tehran from building more centrifuges in the past. Nor will they stop it from resuming work if talks end.

Moreover, if talks collapse, the international sanctions regime is likely to crack sooner rather than later, especially if the United States is blamed. To that point, there will be growing pressure from Israel and Gulf Arab states for a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. This might set the nuclear program back a couple of years, but it won’t destroy it, because Iran already has the scientific know-how. A U.S. or Israeli strike would likely convince the ayatollahs to oust international inspectors and sprint toward bomb production — something they’ve refrained from doing until now.

A new Mideast war would also have unpredictable and dangerous consequences for the region — as did the Iraq war. This explains why many top Israeli security experts, including former heads of Mossad (the Israeli CIA), have reacted sharply to Netanyahu’s hostility toward talks.

“Netanyahu wants to stop Iran at any cost, which means a military operation is almost inevitable,” said former Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom at a conference held by the liberal Zionist organization J Street. “We know how to start wars but not how to end them,” he continued. “So we must consider the cost. That doesn’t exclude military action, but only as a last resort.”

Rule Two: There is no perfect deal. The debatable question is how to define an acceptable deal.

Netanyahu would like Iran’s nuclear-energy program to be completely dismantled, but this is a non-starter. Instead, the goal is to curb the program sufficiently so that, should Iran try to “break out” or “sneak out,” it would take at least a year, during which time its violations would become known.

That, in turn, requires highly intrusive verification measures that Iran can’t circumvent.

International monitors must be given access to any site they suspect might harbor illegitimate activity. They must be able to conduct snap inspections. Iran must answer questions about past activity on suspect nuclear-weapons programs — which it has failed to do despite promises made two years ago.

Critics decry the fact that a deal would have a 10- to 15-year sunset clause and would require a gradual lifting of sanctions. Those worries are legitimate, but there are ways to assuage them. Some possibilities: Iran could be required to submit to intrusive sanctions even after the accord ends. And there could be a “snapback” clause in any deal that automatically reinstates sanctions if Iran is found to violate its terms.

Rule Three: Don’t expect a deal to make Iran behave better in the region. But recognize that a failed deal won’t improve Tehran’s behavior either.

Shiite Iran’s star is rising because so many Sunni Arab governments have collapsed due to corruption and popular revolts — or Western intervention. Obama’s incoherent policy toward Syria and Iraq helped Iran gain strength in the region as American influence waned.

So, yes, it is possible that Iran will become more aggressive if it gets sanctions relief. But airstrikes on Iran would make the ayatollahs more aggressive still. Better to think of how to strengthen Sunni allies in the region and coordinate the rollback of the Islamic State.

Rule Four: If Iran won’t ink a framework deal this month, keep talking. (The final deadline for negotiations isn’t until July.) The Iranian public wants sanctions relief, which puts pressure on the ayatollahs to stay at the table. This gives Washington and its European allies leverage to hang tough for a better deal — if Congress doesn’t pile on more sanctions next month, with the goal of blowing up negotiations. Better to recognize Rule One — that the costs of failure will be heavy — and work toward fashioning an acceptable deal.

  Comments  

Videos

Woman tells her story of DUI arrest to prevent others from drinking and driving

Sandy Barbour’s new contract approved by committee

View More Video

Trending Stories

Former 5-star wide receiver George Campbell transfers to Penn State

February 20, 2019 02:53 PM

Penn State student charged in fatal crash is bound over for trial

February 20, 2019 03:37 PM

Committee approves Penn State AD Sandy Barbour’s new contract

February 21, 2019 02:21 PM

Here’s what’s closed Wednesday as Centre County gets hit with more winter weather

February 20, 2019 05:40 AM

A Centre County bridge is closed until further notice. Here’s why

February 20, 2019 04:00 PM

things to do

Read Next

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Toftrees Avenue needs more pedestrian safety features; thanks, Penn State student

By CDT readers

    ORDER REPRINT →

February 21, 2019 10:02 AM

Centre Daily Times letters on pedestrian safety in Patton Township, the border wall, gerrymandering and more.

KEEP READING

Sign Up and Save

#ReadLocal

Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times

SUBSCRIBE WITH GOOGLE

MORE OPINION

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Failures with Freeh report; townships should pay fair share for police protection

February 20, 2019 12:08 PM

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Water runoff tax needed in State College; ban on Sunday hunting makes sense

February 17, 2019 03:45 PM

Letters to the Editor

Letters: What’s the history of State High alma mater?; Sexist ad had no place at Penn State

February 14, 2019 08:20 PM

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Blame for offensive ad falls to Penn State; UConn has much to prove to fan base

February 13, 2019 08:54 PM

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Rule changes needed in Pa. legislature; carelessness shown over ad at Penn State

February 13, 2019 10:57 AM

Letters to the Editor

Letters: Paterno’s Saudi Arabia connection; state of emergency was warranted

February 09, 2019 07:22 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

Centre Daily Times App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Start a Subscription
  • Customer Service
  • eEdition
  • Vacation Hold
  • Pay Your Bill
  • Rewards
Learn More
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Newsletters
  • News in Education
  • Photo Store
  • Archives
Advertising
  • Information
  • Place a Classified
  • Local Deals
  • Place an Obituary
  • Today's Circulars
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story