Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Deal With the Devil
The short version of the interim deal just struck between the P5+1 countries and Iran is this: Iran gave away almost nothing, got a major financial payoff, and will retain its entire nuclear infrastructure. The US got a check mark on Obama’s legacy ledger, under the column Stuff I Did That Looks Reasonably Good If You’re Myopic Or Uninterested But In Fact Conceals a Seething Cauldron of Awful That Will Probably Not Affect Me Personally, Since I Will Be Out of Office When the Full Magnitude of This Failure Becomes Manifest.
The US also got a new entry in the ever-increasing list of Things John Kerry Has Accomplished, If That’s the Word, of Which He Is Unaccountably Proud.
Here’s a crib sheet on the details of the deal.
On the one side:
- Iran is not required to halt uranium enrichment.
- Iran remains in control of all its existing centrifuges.
- Iran is not required to dismantle its heavy water reactor in Arak.
- Sanctions against Iran have been eased significantly: $8.5-10 billion in Iranian assets will be released by the US, and sanctions will be lifted on the export of auto parts, gold and precious metals, and aircraft spare parts. Several banks will also be exempted from financial sanctions.
On the other side:
- Iran has to suspend 20% uranium enrichment for six months and neutralize its stockpile. Uranium enrichment in Iran will be limited to 5%.
- During that six-month period, Iran will not produce, install, or activate any new centrifuges, and “construction activities” in the Arak reactor will also be suspended.
- Iran has to allow the IAEA access to its nuclear facilities.
Omri Ceren of the Israel Project points out that President Obama’s goal for this six-month interim period was supposedly to prevent the Iranians from advancing their nuclear program. According to Orde Kittrie, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, this deal — which, if it were to have any teeth at all, would have had to “include stronger provisions relating to enrichment, Iran’s heavy water reactor at Arak, and Iran’s research into nuclear weapons design” — “falls far short of what the President set as the goal of this phase-one deal.” Iran will almost certainly be closer to a uranium bomb at the end of the six months, and according to Omri, they could be closer to a plutonium bomb.
In an extensively sourced email to press, Omri pointed out that the deal is assymetrical: the Iranian concessions are reversible while the American concessions are not:
Iranian concessions are reversible
– Iran reported won’t be forced to dismantle their centrifuges, such that at the end of six months they can just turn them back on. Even the conversion of 20% enriched uranium to oxide can be easily reconverted to uranium hexafluoride and enriched from there. The only way to put it beyond use is to actually irradiate the stock, but Iran doesn’t have the capacity to do that, even if the regime wanted to. Instead the stock will sit there waiting to be reconverted (link). Danielle Pletka, Vice President of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at American Enterprise Institute, has assed that “every single step is reversible, every single step will have no meaningful impact on Iran’s capacity to produce a nuclear weapon within weeks or months” (link).U.S. concessions are irreversible – Most straightforwardly, Iran will get to pocket the financial relief they get, using it to stabilize the Iranian economy, bolster its nuclear program, and fund its global terror network. The more significant danger, however, is that chipping away at the sanctions regime completely shatters it. FDD executive director Mark Dubowitz was briefed a few weeks ago by the White House specifically on the question of whether U.S. concessions would be reversible, and he nonetheless assessed that the broad contours of proposed deals “totally eviscerates the sanctions regime” (link). There are multiple scenarios for how limited sanctions relief causes a downward spiral that irreversibly and substantially erodes the regime. The most immediate fear is that major powers and corporations will engage in a feeding frenzy: no one wants to be left behind as Iran’s market opens up, and so everyone tries to get in first. Brookings Institute fellow Michael Doran yesterday pointed to evidence that such a downward spiral was already beginning, with Paris looking to reopen a trade-related attaché office in Tehran next year (link).
Some Iranian concessions are irrelevant to the Phase 1 deal – For example, Iran will reportedly consent to a more aggressive inspection regime during the interim period. More inspections, however, are irrelevant to the central question of whether, six months from now, Iran is closer or farther from a nuclear weapon. With limited exceptions – scenarios for a test run “ruse” at Arak – analysts’ concerns are focused on what Iran will be in a position to do six months from now, not that it will cheat during the interim phase.
As to local response: Israel is disgusted that the Americans caved so completely and abysmally, and are making noises about rethinking the American-Israeli relationship. (They can’t, really, but there’s a growing chorus that wishes they could.) The Iranian mullahs, meanwhile, haven’t felt this beautiful since 1979, and are crowing that their “right” to enrich uranium has now formally been recognized.
Published in General
Given that an Iranian bomb would be an existential threat to Israel….
Given an Iranian nuclear bomb, the threat part no longer exists–it’ll be realized. It’ll take about 4 bombs to eliminate Israel as a nation, as a society, as a people in the Middle East. Given the first bomb, the next three are minor engineering problems. And none of them need be particularly sophisticated or clean. Fallout? These are only Arabs in the Persian mind.
Separately, as has already been noted, the Saudis are getting (not will get) their bombs from Pakistan. Publicly recognizing Israel’s right to exist likely still is politically impossible, but an exchange of aid (use of airspace for an Israeli strike against Iran in return for some Iron Dome help, for instance) is the stuff of winks and nods; it would need no public acknowledgment.
Eric Hines
Yeah, about as likely as Iraq attacking Kuwait. It would never happen…
Only tangentially related to the main topic at hand, I love how quickly terms enter our public lexicon today.
A few weeks ago, if someone had used the term “breakout”, one would have thought people were speaking about acne.
Now, suddenly, on every news program and in article after article, people who haven’t the faintest idea what they’re talking about are throwing around “nuclear breakout” and %s of uranium enrichment as though they are SMEs.
Ah, yes, the modern media landscape: creating the illusion of knowledge every day.
How do you know this? Please, that pronouncement requires intelligence access denied us muggles, does it not? Where do you get your certitude?
Separately, as has already been noted, the Saudis are getting (not will get) their bombs from Pakistan. …
Eric Hines ·23 minutes ago
Judith,
What is of most importance here is the fact that it was all totally unnecessary. The American People & the American Congress weren’t looking for a deal, the Europeans weren’t looking for a deal, the Russians & Chinese weren’t looking for a deal, the Saudis & Egyptians & Turks & Pakistanis weren’t looking for a deal, and of course Israel wasn’t looking for a deal.
The only ones who wanted this deal were the BHO administration and Iran! They both are exhibiting a criminal appetite for power.
The lesson is simple. All over the world and here in the USA too, people are learning that they can’t trust Barry Obama.
Regards,
Jim
As I read the comments, I see no mention of the fact the WE are “The Great Satan” to Iran, not Israel. I can easily see the strategic decision to hit us, especially with Obama in office, and then hit Israel. They know that Israel will retaliate. With plausible deniability, we might not. By plausible deniability I mean a container in New York Harbor.
Thanks Judith – that’s the best summary of the deal that I have read.
It’s hard to see which side has the best liars – they are both masters of the dark arts.
It’s good for the Iranian people, who are the ones really suffering from the sanctions. But they get to keep the Mullahs, which is bad, and the Mullahs will have Plutonium bombs, rather than Uranium (I think most nuclear bombs post-WWII are Plutonium, anyway – that is why we are still stuck with Uranium nuclear reactors, rather than Thorium).
The obvious answer is for the Iranians to build Thorium reactors, which is what we should all be doing to produce electricity. Oh, but then they can’t make Plutonium – it’s almost like they are lying, or something…
Update: hahahahahahahaha
Come on, Thorium reactors? You expect the Iranians to make that venture when nobody else in the advanced world has? Get real.
It’s hard to see which side has the best liars – they are both masters of the dark arts.
It’s good for the Iranian people, who are the ones really suffering from the sanctions. But they get to keep the Mullahs, which is bad, and the Mullahs will have Plutonium bombs, rather than Uranium (I think most nuclear bombs post-WWII are Plutonium, anyway – that is why we are still stuck with Uranium nuclear reactors, rather than Thorium).
The obvious answer is for the Iranians to build Thorium reactors, which is what she would all be doing to produce electricity. Oh, but then they can’t make Plutonium – it’s almost like they are lying, or something… ·10 minutes ago
That was kinda my point, but maybe not for the reason you are thinking.
BTW.
Yes, Obama can indeed be trusted…..to SELL OUT the American people at every opportunity, to diminish the role of America all over the world. He has always thought that the USA was a threat, rather than a force for good in the world. He was brought up in a Communist/Muslim family, and he has always favored those two groups over the Christian/Jewish/Capitalist world. His agenda rolls on…
http://tinyurl.com/kejhvxv[article behind paywall, so I don’t know how easy it is to access. otoh haaretz is an excellent paper, well worth paying for.] ·5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Haaretz is a leftist, liberal newspaper, if you think that is excellent.
David Remnick in The New Yorker described Haaretz as “easily the most liberal newspaper in Israel”, its ideology as left-wing and its temper as “insistently oppositional.”
Don’t know where you get your 60% of American Jews… but the other 40% of us are venomously opposed to liberal Democrats and love Israel. You should care because this same attitude was prevalent prior to WWII and the result was evil.
Well, it’s something of an improvement on Al Jazeera, but I think it misses the point. Instead, I would volunteer this article from the Jerusalem Post as a starter, followed by this article from Israel Hayom. A significant flaw in the deal with Iran is that it doesn’t address the “dash time” needed by Iran with its huge inventory of P2 centrifuges to enrich beyond 20% in a short space of time and, according to the article, undetected.
Still, it’s the opinion of one journalist and I note that there are other articles in Haaretz which take the opposite view.
Still with Haaretz, here’s another sign of a bad deal.
As I heard about the deal, I was reminded of something that Enoch Powell once said, albeit in a rather different context.
So is it safe to say that Iran figures six months without sanctions will give them enough time to raise the money need to fund a really kick-ass weapons program?
Still, it’s the opinion of one journalist and I note that there are other articles in Haaretz which take the opposite view.
I’m indifferent. I personally wouldn’t advocate reading Haaretz any more than I would advocate reading The Grauniad.
So after dropping some nuclear bombs on one major US ally (Israel) Iran then drops a bunch on another major US ally (Saudi Arabia) and then….takes their (radioactive) oil to sell…and lives happily ever after?
Do you think that is their plan? Can you see anything standing in the way of the happily ever after? If you can, can’t they?
Fun facts: Iran is about 10% Sunni (the Kurdish part); Saudi about 15% Shia (mostly where the oil is).
And they’re both there. Good thing, don’t you think?
Still, it’s the opinion of one journalist and I note that there are other articles in Haaretz which take the opposite view.
iow no, there are no laws that stop them from leaving Iran.
As for the other parts of your reply, that’s just more of your characteristic smoke-blowing. The facts about Iran’s Jewish community are easily googled.
But thank you for your additional reading recommendation.
(Wait, this Ari Shavit http://tinyurl.com/q7lj9e4 ? Okay, I’ll try and read him anyway.)
Do you think that is their plan?
I don’t know exactly what Iran would do if they went nuclear, but I would argue that neither do you. That there’d be a hugely destabilizing effect I am quite certain, even if Iran didn’t immediately lob a nuclear missile at Jerusalem or Riyadh (or anybody else).
This paper, although a little dated, contains interesting analyses of the possible effects.
Danny Alexander and Kay of MT, my post was meant to be deliberately provocative, and of course I care. Kay of MT, based on the voting polls I saw in 2012, 60% was being very generous. Again, where is the outrage? I see it in the conservative press but not anywhere else. Certainly not on the Sunday morning shows where the biggest critic of the deal was non-Jewish George.
When I was a serving military officer I and those who served with me would have given all to back Israel in a conflict. I am sure that attitude remains in today’s military. The difference today is I see very, very few of the “ruling class” children in the military. I have no Jewish acquaintances, to include my Congressman, Eric Cantor, whose children have or serve in the military. When it is reported that 40 to 50% of today’s armed forces come from 16% of what is the the typically non-Jewish rural population, and that number is increasing then where is the sacrifice to support Israel or US foreign policy ? Israel is an ally and should be supported, but who will bear the brunt?
…
Namely, how can we now build and propagate a supportive messaging campaign for Israel, given that Israel may well strike Iran in pre-emptive self-defense as a consequence of the Geneva deal? Israel is going to need all the moral support it can get now, in the run-up to and event of such a strike. ·2 hours ago
Whenever Israel acts in self-defense, either preemptively or even in retaliation, it is routinely condemned by most of the world. Moral support in this situation is, regrettably, irrelevant. Military and economic support in the aftermath of a strike is what would matter. Israel no longer has friends among the leaders of any nations who could provide such support, and that situation is unlikely to change before Israel is forced to act. Israel must simply act in its own best interests, at a time of its own choosing, whether it has the support of the US public or not.
Israel no longer has friends among the leaders of any nations who could provide such support, and that situation is unlikely to change before Israel is forced to act.
“But the strong-armed and slanderers have conquered and there are none who seek and beseech on behalf of Israel. Upon whom can we rely?”
True. I don’t, and it would certainly change a lot of dynamics in the ME.
I don’t know exactly what Iran would do if they went nuclear, but I would argue that neither do you. That there’d be a hugely destabilizing effect I am quite certain, even if Iran didn’t immediately lob a nuclear missile at Jerusalem or Riyadh (or anybody else).
So what is the additional outcome, at this very moment, that your think the West should push for – and what is the motivation for Iran that the West is willing to provide?
One possible outcome is that a nuclear Iran might be less aggressive outside its borders rather than more, because the regime would be more secure. Does it come down to making the regime more secure in return for their not going nuclear? Talking to them directly is one step in that direction.
So what is the additional outcome, at this very moment, that your think the West should push for – and what is the motivation for Iran that the West is willing to provide?
I’m not sure that the West (at least not P5+1) can push for something else at the moment, having just signed an agreement. What I would have wanted to see was Iran agreeing to dismantle the machinery with which they could otherwise produce a nuclear weapon rather than simply stopping the processes which would lead to the same end.
I suppose anything is possible if they acquire nuclear weapons, but taking a less aggressive posture would not have been one of the first things to spring to my mind. I would assign to that scenario the same probability as their recognizing Israel or acknowledging the Holocaust as a real historical event. The one area where I am in consonance with Iran is their passion for Indian tea which I understand they have taken in exchange for heavily discounted crude oil.
Edited 8 hours ago
4. Iran wants control of Mecca and Medina. Or at least Shiite control.
GC Mandrake – I had a quick squiz at the paper you linked to – very interesting. What do you think the chances are of Israel doing that “we’ll pack up our nukes if you do, see, this is how it’s done”? Seems remote to me – both for Israel and for the rest of the ME (because it is not all about Israel in the ME, jmho).
A question – do you think a nuclear Saudi would be as much of danger to ME stability as a nuclear Iran? Because this whole ‘don’t recognise Israel or acknowledge the Holocaust’ is kind of standard across the region – though it doesn’t seem to stop them from cooperating (even Saudi) with Israel when it’s in their interest to do so.
Re: Iran’s end goals; I do think they’d rather have a rich peace than a poverty stricken war. Recognising Israel, while pleasant for Israel, isn’t directly relevant to that end – the West making it a condition for Iran coming in from the cold would be a mistake – leaving it aside might see it occur as trade increases between Iran and Israel and things normalise between Israel and thePalestinians.
Why?
Edited 8 hours ago
4. Iran wants control of Mecca and Medina. Or at least Shiite control. ·15 minutes ago
You’ve asked a lot of questions to which I don’t have immediate answers. I doubt that there will be a situation where Israel unilaterally disarms. My concern about the Saudis acquiring nuclear weapons is that there would be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Given the history of the region in the last few decades, that’s a highly unappetizing prospect, and I don’t feel at all confident that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction would have quite the same deterrent effect as it had between the US and the old Soviet Union. In fact, I would suspect that General Ripper would feel quite at home in a nuclear Middle East.
I’m not so much interested in Iran’s recognizing (or better still, accepting) Israel as I am about Iran’s ceasing to talk about its destruction as a consummation devoutly to be wished.