This morning on NPR they were discussing the Iran agreement. I can’t remember who (an administration official, I think) said something to the effect of “Well, they may be complying withe the agreement, technically, but not the spirit of the agreement.” He/she then used this as a reason for the U.S. to withdraw from the agreement.
Huh? Aren’t these agreements all about the technicalities? Its like saying “You’ve met all the terms of the contract but I’m not paying you because I don’t like the outcome. Actually, I don’t like the contract, either”. Sounds to me like a pretty weak argument. How, exactly, is Iran not complying with the spirit of the agreement? What is the spirit of it , anyway?
Finally, how, specifically, is this “the worst agreement the U.S. has ever entered into”?
Its the worst agreement the United States ever entered into because Donald Trumps says it is, and he knows more about agreements than anyone in the history of the United States.
Or in other words, this is just a hyperbolic white house talking point with nothing to back it up that can be largely ignored.
Very rough summary: Iran must drastically reduce its nuclear materials (~98% are gone), and will have two (I think it’s just two – could be three or four) peaceful (i.e. energy-producing and research, not weapons-producing) nuclear facilities. There will have oversight of Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, and 24/7 access to the declared peaceful nuclear facilities, along with the power to inspect any other facility they suspect as long as they give notice (subject to arbitration if Iran doesn’t want them to see a certain facility).
It seems that the IAEA doesn’t have a very good track record of detecting clandestine nuclear programs. Maybe we can put Mossad in charge of the inspections?
The deal is very specifically about Iran’s use of nuclear power - and nothing else. So while both parties may well have hoped that the deal would also pave the way for improvements in other areas, that all fell outside of the deal itself, and had to be dealt with and negotiated separately (if at all). The Americans could go on supporting the Saudi war in Yemen, the Iranians could go on supporting Hezbollah, and both parties could go on meddling to their heart’s content in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and beyond. The deal was meant to change one thing, and one thing only - and that it did.
The fact is that if the United States pulls out of the agreement, the other signatories won’t follow suit. So Russia, China, France, the UK, and the rest of the EU won’t reinstate sanctions.
And so what happens then? No more nuclear inspections, Iran is free from sanctions. Wow, great move, you just freed Iran to start up their nuclear weapons program again.
There is no evidence right now that Iran is cheating on the agreement, just a “feeling” that they must be cheating because it’s Iran so no evidence is needed–hey, the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud!
Except how exactly does the United States unilaterally pulling out of the agreement stop the Iranian nuclear program? We need Russia and China and Europe on our side as well. Remember our new friends the Russians? They’re not going to cut off trade with Iran just because we do. We can’t rip up the agreement and go back to the day before the agreement was signed, where all the outside powers had sanctions on Iran. We go back to nothing.
Considering that part of Mossad’s remit is protecting the world’s largest clandestine nuclear weapons program, you might get a few raised eyebrows at that.
Even assuming that those sources are evidence the IAEA is bad at detecting clandestine nuclear programs, both of those examples are in countries that were not under inspection regimes.
What a lot of people miss in this is that it isn’t about us “allowing” Iran or North Korea to have nukes. Any country that wants nukes long enough is going to get them. You’d think that folks who think that every nutjob and his brother should have guns would get this.
The underlying problem is of course that Iran, or North Korea, or anyone else who wants to go down this road, can make the same accusation, with some justice, against the existing nuclear powers in relation to their commitment in Article VI of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”.