In response to the recent international agreement to temporarily freeze Iran's nuclear program, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter accused the Obama Administration of “making friends with our former enemies." [1] Representative Hunter, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, declared that instead of negotiating the US should drop “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian enrichment facilities. [2]
I wrote my previous post before Obama had secured this most recent nuclear deal. Today I'll explain why this preliminary agreement is a game-changer.
I wrote my previous post before Obama had secured this most recent nuclear deal. Today I'll explain why this preliminary agreement is a game-changer.
Last time I wrote about this issue I made a game theory model of the decision America must make to either negotiate with Iran or launch a military strike. Uncertainty about Iran's true intentions makes this decision all the more difficult: we can't be sure whether Iran genuinely wants peace, or if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is just a wolf in sheep's clothing. I argued if the US negotiates with Rouhani, there's a risk that these negotiations could buy time for Iran to complete a nuclear bomb. [3]
Over the next six months, Iran must freeze the construction of centrifuges and heavy water reactors. In addition the level of uranium enrichment will be capped well below what would be needed for a nuclear weapon. [4] But why should we trust them to comply with these terms? We shouldn't. That's why this agreement includes daily international inspections to verify their compliance. [4]
In return trade sanctions will be reduced by a token amount. In response to Rep. Hunter, we're hardly "making friends" with our enemies. First of all, we will continue to firmly enforce the international sanction against buying Iranian oil that has crippled their economy. [5] Second, all sanctions will be automatically and immediately reinstated if Iran is caught cheating. [6]Here's the most important thing to understand: this is not the final deal. This is just a preliminary deal that says while negotiations are taking place for the next six months, Iran must freeze its nuclear program. In the last post, I said the problem with negotiating with Iran is that they could use the time to keep enriching uranium. This initial deal completely solves that problem since now they can't increase enrichment levels while we negotiate.
This totally changes the game. Up until this point, time has been on Iran's side: every day that passed without a final deal being reached they got closer to the bomb. Now time is on America's side: even if a final arrangement cannot be reached within six months, both sides will have the same incentives to extend the deal six more months that they had when they agreed to it in the first place. If today Iran thinks it's worth it to delay it's nuclear program in exchange for modest sanction relief, then it will still be worth it six months from now. Therefore, if things continue on this path, we might expect the US and Iran to renew the nuclear freeze every six months until a final deal is reached. And every day that negotiations continue, Iran's nuclear program will now be strictly limited and inspected daily.
This short-term agreement with Iran gives us the opportunity to test whether Rouhani is actually willing to negotiate in good faith, without the danger that Iran would all the while be getting closer to the bomb.
This short-term agreement with Iran gives us the opportunity to test whether Rouhani is actually willing to negotiate in good faith, without the danger that Iran would all the while be getting closer to the bomb.
Let's compare the worst case scenarios for the Obama Administration's diplomatic plan and Rep. Hunter's military plan. The worst thing that could happen for Obama's strategy is that after six months of negotiations, Iran still refuses to compromise and starts enriching uranium again. In this case, we're no worse off than where we started, but now Iran's nuclear program has been delayed by six months. Compare that to Rep. Hunter's proposal that we drop nuclear bombs on all Iranian enrichment facilities across the country. The funny thing is, for Rep. Hunter's plan the worst case scenario is the same as the best case scenario: he's advocating we start a nuclear war, which is surely the most horrific outcome imaginable.
To be fair, not every GOP lawmaker has gone so far as to endorse nuking Iran. Yet Republican opposition to the Obama Administration's decision to negotiate has been near universal. [7] And make no mistake: if someone opposes negotiating with Iran, then are necessarily supporting war with Iran. Because at this point, those are the only two options.
