What do you think about the nuclear weapons accord reached with Iran last week? ADVERTISING What do you think about the nuclear weapons accord reached with Iran last week? And how do you feel about it? Let’s start with “think.”
What do you think about the nuclear weapons accord reached with Iran last week?
And how do you feel about it?
Let’s start with “think.”
Nuclear negotiations are highly technical, and for non-experts, such as most of us, an understanding and evaluation of the accord are elusive. Reducing Iran’s current stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98 percent is impressive, but is it enough?
Will reducing by two-thirds the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges maintain a sufficient “breakout time” between Iran and a nuclear weapon?
And if Iran gets a $150 billion windfall from sanctions relief, will the money be used to rebuild its economy or will it be diverted toward groups, such as Hezbollah, that use force to promote Iran’s interests in the region?
These are empirical questions, and they have empirical answers.
But the technical elements of the accord are tough for laypersons to evaluate. And other uncertainties can be resolved, definitively, only by time.
But the rational elements — the things people can “think” about — are less important than how people “feel.” And, indeed, a lot of the initial reaction to the deal reflects emotions — suspicion, fear, sanctimony, superiority, hatred — rather than reason.
This explains why rejection of the accord by congressional Republicans began well before they could have analyzed the text.
Or even read it: Admitting he hadn’t read the text yet, Republican senator and presidential candidate Lindsay Graham said, “This is the most dangerous, irresponsible step I have ever seen in watching the history of the Mideast. Barack Obama, John Kerry, have been dangerously naive.”
But at least Graham waited, barely, until the accord was reached.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer was calling it a “disaster” in April, three months before negotiations concluded.
Two other important emotions are in play here, as well: jealousy and spite.
American politics will play a huge role in how Congress responds to this accord.
Short of unrealistic provisions, such as Iran’s complete capitulation to every American stipulation, one cannot imagine any arrangement developed by the Obama administration that would produce praise from the right. For many Republicans, denying Obama any success is paramount.
Which is unfortunate, especially if politics leads to a disapproval of the deal in Congress, an action that would significantly undercut its chances for success.
Evaluation of the current accord should be based primarily on its technical elements, and for that we should pay a lot of attention to what scientists and other experts say about it. But at the least, the accord’s opponents shouldn’t be beguiled by simplistic prejudices about Iran based on emotions such as fear and suspicion.
Of course, proponents of the accord can be misled by their emotions, as well — too much optimism, for example, or unwarranted faith in the notion that most human societies are seeking essentially the same things.
Still, Iran is a culture ripe to be brought into the modern world, to everyone’s benefit. It has a long democratic tradition that dates back at least to its revolution in 1905.
Despite its current wretched leadership, Iran is a young society that shows clear signs of interest in modernity, moderation and increased international engagement. In fact, in many respects we have much more in common with Iran than with allies such as Saudi Arabia or rivals such as China.
It would be unfortunate to let this opportunity slip away.
We’re fond of saying we turn to war only as a last resort, but rejection of this accord severely damages the notion that diplomacy still has a role to play in a world that seems increasingly hell-bent on fighting.
It’s in the nature of negotiation that nobody gets everything he wants.
Our power — military, economic, cultural — should give us the courage to “think,” rather than “feel” about this accord’s potential, to factor out emotions and prejudices, to make concessions as needed and to even take a few chances, as long as we get what we want in the end.
John M. Crisp, an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service, teaches in the English Department at Del Mar College in Corpus Christi, Texas. Email him at jcrispdelmar.edu.
