I do not know anyone who believes the world would be better off with a nuclear Iran. Indeed, most, including myself, believe we should leave all options on the table in order to prevent that most troubling circumstance. We must either secure a verifiable and enforceable agreement from Iran that they will cease efforts to develop nuclear weapons, or compel their cessation using any means necessary. But the options before us are not equally preferable, and many are not indefinitely available.
Opponents of a deal harp on “red herrings” that serve no purpose except to muddy the waters and serve the contrived interests of various domestic and international factions. First, the notion that we should not negotiate with Iran because they are our enemy is nonsense. Not only does this beg the question of how thin the gruel would be if we only negotiated complex issues with our friends, but it also flies in the face of the history of American diplomacy. Second, there is the very real concern that Iran would use the agreement’s lifting of economic sanctions as a means to enhance its support of regional terrorists and further threaten our friends and allies in the region, particularly Israel. Clearly, this is a threat we must be prepared to counter by an increased focus on such things as support for our friends in countering this activity as well as redoubled efforts to obtain the release of U.S. citizens and others who are being illegally detained by the Iranian regime. But these are separate issues that must take a back seat to the absolute imperative of keeping Iran from fielding a nuclear weapon.
Make no mistake, economic sanctions have worked. They resulted in an agreement mandating verifiable and enforceable nuclear concessions from Iran. Iran will be forced to destroy, dilute, and eliminate its stock of potential nuclear material and restrict the means to produce it to levels so low that they will be precluded from producing a nuclear weapon without ample warning.
Should Iran fail to comply with the terms of the agreement, the most complicated inspection regimen ever imposed in an international nuclear agreement will render it obvious. Our nuclear experts are united in their view that the combination of inspections and supply chain observations makes it virtually impossible that the Iranians could covertly cheat. If they do cheat, as they have done in the past, the agreement includes “snapback” provisions that will re-impose the full complement of economic sanctions by us and the international community. Wisely, the agreement’s wording is such that this “snap back” to sanctions cannot be blocked by either China or Russia.
There are alternatives to the agreement. Military force is one, but with lots of problems. First, let us look at the notion that surgical strikes with “bunker busters” would be an effective deterrent. Could we do some damage? Absolutely! But this would not set them back more than a few years, and it would further motivate them to continue their program.
Some, who must have very short memories, argue for a more expansive – and expensive – military option. They argue for an invasion Iran and imposing our will on them. Some of those who seem to eagerly anticipate and support that option may even say that “We will be welcomed as liberators.” Wait! – I have heard that before somewhere – and not too long ago. Indeed, the Iraq war killed several thousand brave American service members and wounded many times more. Yet it resulted only in destabilizing the region by emasculating Iran’s regional enemy, and its principal outcome was to “produce” terrorists who hate us and all we stand for. War with Iran would be the same, only worse. Our future generations deserve better.
There is plenty of room for reasoned debate on how we resolve this national security challenge. But such decisions must not be made based on the rancor that dominates so much of our current political atmosphere. We need political leadership that wisely supports giving the agreement a chance to prevent Iran from adding nuclear weapons to its arsenal. Should the agreement fail at some future date, whether it is next month or two, 10 or 15 years into the future, America will be no worse off than where we currently stand. If it succeeds, we will have accomplished our principal objective while sparing the world a conflict of interminable end and the most horrific of consequences to our economy and our most valuable resource, our youth.
Major General Don Loranger retired after 34 of USAF service as an operational pilot and specialist in U.S. national security policy. He lives in Bigfork.