Conservatives Rush to Derail Iran Talks After Netanyahu’s Misleading Speech

March 4, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech laid out Israel’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program – a concern shared by Congress and the Obama Administration. But while it succeeded in cynically pandering to his home constituency – after the speech, members of Congress called it a “campaign pep rally” and “straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook” – it failed to present a feasible alternative to the Administration’s diplomatic initiative. Instead, the Prime Minister made clear that he misunderstands what sanctions and negotiations can achieve, and what the consequences of these talks could be. Now, Congress is fast-tracking a bill that could scuttle the talks. As this increasingly partisan legislation is rushed to a vote, members of Congress must seriously consider the real consequences of undermining the negotiations: the unraveling of the international sanctions regime, an unchecked and unmonitored Iranian nuclear program, and potential military action against Iran. These are the alternatives to the negotiations as they are, not as the Prime Minister would so unrealistically wish they were.

What did Prime Minister Netanyahu actually propose?

The Prime Minister believes that the United States can just negotiate a better deal. As Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, wrote yesterday, Prime Minister Netanyahu “claims in hyperbolic terms that the deal-in-the-making just isn’t good enough. He believes that additional pressure, through still tougher sanctions, will somehow persuade Iran’s leaders to dismantle their major nuclear facilities entirely. That’s a dangerous fantasy. In 2005, when Iran had a few hundred centrifuges, insisting on zero enrichment in a nuclear deal may have been possible. Ten years and 19,000 centrifuges later, it is not.  Even if Iran completely ’dismantled’ its nuclear infrastructure, it could rebuild it. For about a decade, Iran has had the basic capacity to produce bomb grade nuclear material for weapons. Tougher sanctions or a military strike will not eliminate the knowledge and basic industrial capacity.” And Aaron David Miller, who spent decades as a negotiator in the Middle East, has explained that complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program is off the table: “Iran also has no intention of throwing away billions invested in its nuclear infrastructure,” he wrote. “We can’t underestimate how important Iran’s nuclear program is as a hedge against regime change and as a symbol of its great power status in the region, particularly to many hard-line conservative elites convinced that the U.S. wants the mullahs gone. The nuclear issue has become part of Iran’s identity. Defying the West’s effort to restrict that enterprise has become a matter of national pride and dignity.” Claims that the United States can just negotiate Iran’s nuclear program away completely misunderstand the facts. [Daryl Kimball, 3/3/15. Aaron David Miller, 11/29/14]

A good deal must lengthen the time it would take for Iran to achieve a nuclear weapon and prevent Iran from developing a weapon in secret. And that’s exactly what the deal that the United States and P5+1 are negotiating would do. As Kimball wrote yesterday, “The agreement that is taking shape would block Iran’s major potential pathways to nuclear weapons development-the uranium-enrichment route and the plutonium-separation route-and guard against a clandestine weapons program. It will establish strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program for more than 10 years, and perhaps up to 15 years.” Under the terms of such an agreement, “it would take Iran 12 months or more to produce enough weapons-grade enriched-uranium gas for one nuclear weapon. That is more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to develop nuclear weapons.” The Prime Minister is also concerned that Iran could develop a weapon in secret after reaching an agreement, but as Ilan Goldenberg, Director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, told NSN on Monday, “Iran has already tried this twice with Natanz and Fordow. Both of those facilities started as covert facilities until they were caught by Western intelligence agencies years before they were ready to actually come online. The good news is it’s really hard to do this, they haven’t been able to do this in the past, and the types of mechanisms that would be put in place in the aftermath of a deal would make it virtually impossible.” No potential deal could address the “sneak out” scenario, though, which led Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) to remark yesterday that Prime Minister Netanyahu “is a rejectionist. There is no agreement that this Administration could achieve with Iran that would be good enough for him… I believe the Prime Minister thinks that inspectors, no matter how intrusive and how careful they are, may not be able to locate all of the nuclear facilities that Iran has underway. Well, if the inspectors can’t locate them, how can he bomb all of them?” [Daryl Kimball, 3/3/15. Ilan Goldenberg, 3/2/15. Lloyd Doggett, 3/3/15]

But Netanyahu misunderstands Iran’s interests and the interests of other countries in the region. Netanyahu expressed his concerns that a potential agreement would not only allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, but that this would lead to a proliferation cascade across the Middle East and that Tehran would behave irrationally if it obtained a weapon. As Kingston Reif, Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction at the Arms Control Association, has written, this is far more likely to occur without an agreement. “Saudi warnings that it might follow Iran down the path of a nuclear-weapons capability are symptomatic of its distrust of Iran and desire for greater protection from the United States,” Reif wrote on Monday. “A comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran can promote regional security and nonproliferation without barring all Iranian uranium enrichment, if its limits are significant and its verification measures are strong. It is the failure to secure a comprehensive deal to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran that would strike a much larger blow to the global nonproliferation regime.” And, despite Netanyahu’s concerns, there is no evidence to suggest that Iran would act against its own interests if it did obtain a weapon. Matthew Duss, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, calls this the “martyr state myth,” which is “the idea that Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran is uniquely immune to the cost-benefit analysis that underpins conventional deterrence simply by virtue of being religious Shiites,” he explained on an NSN press call on Monday. This doesn’t hold up to analysis, Duss said, and “disagrees with both U.S. and Israeli  intelligence consensus, which holds that Iran behaves according to a rational cost-benefit analysis and this is precisely the analysis of the P5+1, the U.S., and its partners have been trying to influence with these negotiations.” In fact, Duss has noted, by suggesting that Iran will respond to more sanctions, Netanyahu implicitly accepts that Iran is a rational actor. [Kingston Reif, 3/2/15. Matthew Duss, 3/2/15]

Now, Congress is accelerating their plans for deal-killing legislation. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced yesterday that he’d place legislation from Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) on a fast-track to be voted on by the end of the month. The bill would subject any deal to congressional review and a potential vote of disapproval. It would also signal to Iranian hardliners that the United States may not be able to follow through on the commitments made in an agreement – and would explicitly delay the implementation of any agreement by two months. The move to accelerate the legislation and vote in advance of the notional deadline for a framework agreement and months in advance of the June deadline for negotiations makes clear that the goal of the bill is to prejudge – or preempt – an agreement, not to actually consider one. The move has alienated even some of the bill’s Democratic cosponsors. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said yesterday, “There is no emergency, this deal – if there is one – won’t be concluded until almost summer. Let’s do this the right way…If this is the process then I will have no choice but to use my voice and vote against any motion to proceed to the bill.” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), another cosponsor, said McConnell’s move “disrespects” bipartisan efforts and that “we need to demonstrate that our review will be thoughtful and deliberate rather than rushed and partisan.” After Netanyahu’s speech yesterday, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) advised restraint. “I’d respectfully suggest that Congress ought to take a deep breath, exhale, and allow the Administration to see if they can bring this agreement across the finish line…Nothing is lost by attempting to make diplomacy work.” [Robert Menendez via Politico, 3/3/15. Tim Kaine,3/3/15. Earl Blumenauer, 3/3/15]

Congress needs to consider the real alternatives to a negotiated agreement. The Prime Minister argued yesterday that “the alternative to a bad deal is not war. It is a much better deal.” But this is wishful thinking – he offered no realistic path to that better deal and no real restraints on Iran’s program. As Fareed Zakaria noted after the speech, Iran has increased its nuclear program under the sanctions that Netanyahu advocated and “are going to get very leaky soon. In fact, under sanctions, Iran has been able to build about 19,000 centrifuges. So imagine the next 10 years with no deal – where will Iran be? I would imagine that with no deal, Iran would get much closer to where Netanyahu doesn’t want it to be.” The Prime Minister’s unspoken alternative to the faltering sanctions regime and unchecked nuclear program that would result if the negotiations collapse, is military strikes. “Members of Congress have been saying openly that if the Prime Minister is asking for a war, that’s something he needs to say very clearly, because the alternative to successful negotiations in the minds of many in Congress is military action,”  Dylan Williams, the Director of Government Affairs for J Street, said during an NSN press call earlier this week.”A military action that both Israeli and U.S. intelligence and security experts believe may not be successful in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and in fact might even spur it to engage in activities that would accelerate elements of its program that could be used to make a nuclear weapon.” [Fareed Zakaria, 3/3/15. Dylan Williams, 3/2/15]

 

Photo Credit: Secretary Kerry walks along Lake Geneva before resuming nuclear negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. [State Department, 3/3/15]