When US president Ronald Reagan signed the infamous Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty with Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev at the White House, he used the old Russian proverb: Doveryai, no proveryai. In simple words, it meant: ‘Trust, but verify’, which came to define his relationship with the Soviet leader. Soon after, the phrase became a cornerstone of American diplomacy. Reagan used it to emphasize “the extensive verification procedures that would enable both sides to monitor compliance with the treaty.”
Almost thirty years later, President Obama announced a breakthrough with Iran in the nuclear deal, which he rightly called “a historic understanding.” Channeling Reagan, he said: “Iran will face strict limitations on its program, and Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. So this deal,” the president said, “is not based on trust, its based on unprecedented verification.”
More than twelve months of secret negotiations, intense public diplomatic efforts and other pressure tactics resulted in bringing Iran and the world’s major powers to reach an unprecedented framework in slowing down Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both sides at the table were skeptical, yet the results they achieved were unexpected and surprising.
"Do you really think this deal is worse than another war in the Middle East?"
The (P5+1) negotiators have agreed on a framework which poses a win-win scenario. Instead of a joint statement, both parties issued their respective results out of the framework meeting. US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the framework limits Iran’s capabilities to build a bomb. US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who took part in the negotiations, called it a long term deal. “There is no sunset. There will be a lot of phases starting with extremely stringent restrictions on Iran’s program. We have 10 year restrictions, 15 year restrictions, and we have forever restrictions. So, this is a long-term program, not something that will go away in a few years.” The Iranian Foreign Minister remarked that his country would continue enriching, modernizing its heavy water reactor, and allow its Fordo facility to remain operating.
The devil, however, remains in the details, which will be finalized over the next three months. The “good deal” is not final or even signed, but some basic outlines have been made public.
The Obama administration has acknowledged that the Congress played a critical role in the current Iran policy, helping to shape the sanctions regime that applied so much pressure on Iran that ultimately forced them to the table. The high ups now want to engage the Congress to ‘approve’ the details of the deal. The division between the congressional Democrats and Republicans is wider than ever.
The possible agreement is between the world powers and Iran and does not necessarily require the consent of the Senate, but US lawmakers including some Democrats have asked for a vote on this deal. The Republicans will ask tough questions and may try to block the agreement. The chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, says many details of the agreement are not yet known making it difficult to determine if this is a good or bad agreement. He said there appear to be discrepancies on how sanctions will be relieved. “I know there will be a lot of details worked out over the next several months. It’s important that Congress play its rightful role in approving this prior to the congressionally-mandated sanctions that we put in place are alleviated.” Corker said his committee will go ahead with plans to vote April 14 on legislations requiring the president to submit a final agreement to Congress for debate and vote. The administration is forthcoming so far but the president has also vowed to veto. Corker’s step would prohibit Obama from suspending sanctions during a 60-day congressional review. However, only the required 67 votes in the 100-seat chamber can override a presidential veto. The president, as reported, has almost 66 votes already.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
Obama has said that he will underscore that the issues at stake were bigger than politics, calling it the matter of war and peace. Since the Republicans who run both houses of the Congress have been vigorously criticizing this deal, there has been an element of fear that the deal could fall apart. “If Congress kills this deal – not based on expert analysis, and without offering any reasonable alternative – then its the United States that will be blamed of the failure of diplomacy. International unity will collapse, and the path to conflict will widen,” Obama emphasized in his speech.
This is something that Obama has been aiming for since he took office. A White House official reportedly has said there have been more Situation Room meetings on Iran than on any other topic. The preoccupation was so great that in the process of reaching out to Iran, over the past few years, Obama shifted from obvious political targets to technical compromises as well. In the meantime, he remained in contact with Iranian authorities, both secretly and openly, through letters and diplomatic contacts.
The president ultimately posed several questions to the framework critics. “Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world’s major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East? Is it worse than doing what we’ve done for almost two decades, with Iran moving forward with its nuclear program and without robust inspection?”
Several Republican members of Congress have already gone over the president’s head by sending a letter to Iran, warning that any deal could be undone after Obama is gone. However, it did not play out well. Iran disdained, Democrats condemned, the media criticized, and the administration startled. To counter any such step the administration has asked the critics to offer a better alternative to the framework. The president laid out options for them.
Americans are deeply skeptical an agreement will keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon
“First, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal – like this one – and peacefully prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The second option is we can bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East, and setting back Iran’s program by a few years – in other words, setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. Meanwhile, we’d ensure that Iran would race ahead to try and build a bomb. Third, we can could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or add additional ones, and hope for the best – knowing that every time we have done so, Iran has not capitulated but instead has advanced its program, and that in very short order, the breakout timeline would be eliminated and a nuclear arms race in the region could be triggered because of that uncertainty.”
According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, released after the announcement of the framework success, almost 59 percent of the Americans support Obama’s first option. The reports indicate that thirty one percent are opposed to such a deal in the poll. The poll also finds that Americans remain deeply skeptical that an agreement would keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
A group of experts and negotiators will work on the deal with Iran, while the President has set up another team of his close officials to convince lawmakers in his favor. What Iran does after the nuclear deal is the world power’s trust, but what congressional opponents do to the administration before the nuclear deal is the White House’s to verify.
