by Yoni Hersch
An unusual Washington Post editorial raises concerns over a potential nuclear deal with Iran • "An accord with far-reaching implications" could be "imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term," the editorial warned.
No deal has been signed between Iran and world
powers yet, but the reports continuously leaking out of the negotiating
rooms and the stern warnings being issued by Israel are making quite a
few Americans wary of a possible bad deal. Over the weekend, the
Washington Post ran an editorial titled "The emerging Iran nuclear deal
raises major concerns" that leveled criticism at the conduct of the
American administration.
"Though we have long supported negotiations
with Iran as well as the interim agreement the United States and its
allies struck with Tehran, we share several of those concerns and
believe they deserve more debate now -- before negotiators present the
world with a fait accompli," began the editorial. The potential
complications of a nuclear agreement with Iran have been raised by many,
and the editorial specifically mentions former U.S. Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger and Senator Timothy Kaine. Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who has repeatedly warned against a bad deal with Iran, was
entirely overlooked.
The editorial divided the problems of the
potential deal into three main concerns. The first was that the process,
which began with the aim of preventing Iran from developing nuclear
weapons, would "evolve into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict
that capability."
The second was that as long as the talks were
ongoing, the Obama administration would avoid confronting Iran's
aggressive efforts to increase its influence in the Middle East, and
that the U.S. "seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power
at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies."
The third was that the White House hinted that
they would implement the future agreement without Congressional
approval. "Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications
for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed
unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term."
Convincing the skeptics
The post quoted Kissinger as saying that the
talks, having started out as an international effort, have now turned
into an "essentially bilateral negotiation between the United States and
Iran" over the scope of Iran's nuclear capability and not over its very
existence.
"Where it once aimed to eliminate Iran's
ability to enrich uranium, the administration now appears ready to
accept an infrastructure of thousands of Iranian centrifuges," the
editorial went on to assert. "As several senators pointed out last month
during a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, the prospective
deal would leave Iran as a nuclear-threshold state while theoretically
giving the world time to respond if Tehran chose to build a weapon."
The Washington Post editorial raises the
question whether it would even be possible to prevent Iran from
violating their commitments and clandestinely pursuing nuclear
capability. Senator Kaine is quoted in this context as someone who
points to the failed American efforts to negotiate with North Korea over
its nuclear program. He warned that with Iran, "a nation that has
proven to be very untrustworthy ... the end result is more likely to be a
North Korean situation" if existing infrastructure is not dismantled.
The editorial also leveled harsh criticism at
the absence of any American response to Iranian attempts to achieve
hegemony in the Middle East. "Rather than contest the Iranian bid for
regional hegemony, as has every previous U.S. administration since the
1970s, [President Barack] Obama appears ready to concede Iran a place in
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and beyond -- a policy that is viewed with alarm
by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey, among other allies."
Finally, the editorial stressed the editors'
vehement opposition to the implementation of a nuclear deal with Iran
without Congressional approval. "Such a unilateral course by Mr. Obama
would alienate even his strongest congressional supporters. It would
mean that a deal with Iran could be reversed, within months of its
completion, by the next president. It's hard to escape the conclusion
that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid congressional review because he suspects a
bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make," the
editorial argued.
"If so, the right response to the questions now being
raised is to seek better terms from Iran -- or convince the doubters
that an accord blessing and preserving Iran's nuclear potential is
better than the alternatives," the editorial concluded.
Yoni Hersch
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23385
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment