Tags: Iran | Israel | iaea | miller | tehran

Only Coercive, Punitive Action Will Defuse Nuclear Iran

Only Coercive, Punitive Action Will Defuse Nuclear Iran
(Allexxandar/Dreamstime)

By
Friday, 04 May 2018 02:49 PM Current | Bio | Archive

The Iran nuclear deal, concluded in July 2015, was catapulted back into the headlines on Monday, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that the Israel intelligence services had managed to spirit away a huge trove of documents from the heart of Tehran to Israel.

A Dodgy Deal Born of Deception

The documents prove that, in contradiction to public declarations of it leaders, Iran had, indeed, planned to produce nuclear weapons, to develop the ability to deliver them by means of ballistic missiles, and had secretly stored the information in an undisclosed location — presumably for use at some future date, chosen by the Iranians.

After all, if this was not the Iranian intent, why bother to store them at all — never mind surreptitiously conceal such storage?

Reactions to Netanyahu’s exposé ranged from the fervently enthusiastic to the dismissively blasé, with opinions being roughly divided between those who opposed the 2015 deal; and those who endorsed it — the former seeing it as a telling endorsement of their prior position, the latter, refusing to be moved by the revelations.

Those who would attempt to diminish the significance of the remarkable intelligence coup, by claiming that what Netanyahu revealed produced nothing substantially new, or anything demonstrating that Iran had breached the 2015 deal, largely miss the point.

Indeed, it is difficult to know what is worse — whether these claims by the deal’s adherents (or more accurately, apologists) are true, or whether they are not.

For if they are true, then the deal was signed with the co-signatories fully aware that the deal was "born in sin," and based on blatant deception and deceit on the part of the Iranians — to which they were willingly complicit.

Alternatively, if they are not true, then the co-signatories were blatantly hoodwinked by Tehran, and are now disingenuously trying to deny their incompetence and gullibility.

" . . . The Cruelest of Ironies . . . "

For the real point brought home by Netanyahu’s revelation is not that the deal has been violated, but that it should never have been made in the first place. As former senior State Department official, and today Vice President at the Woodrow Wilson International Center, Aaron David Miller, points out, the absurdity of the deal is that it awards “Iran . . . huge rewards for giving up something it wasn’t supposed to be doing in the first place."

Indeed, if anything, Miller understates the absurdity.

For, in fact, the deal does not really require Iran to "give up something it wasn’t supposed to be doing in the first place," but merely to suspend it. Worse, under the terms of the agreement, Iran was essentially allowed — even empowered — "to continue doing things it wasn’t supposed to be doing in the first place" — like developing ballistic missiles to carry nuclear war-heads, fomenting and financing terror across the globe, and effectively annexing other countries–either directly (as in Syria) or by tightly-controlled proxies (as in Lebanon).

In light of all this, the two major claims advanced by the deprecators of Netanyahu’s exposé —i.e. 1. That they heralded nothing new; and 2. Indicated no breach by Iran —appear to be specious indeed.

Premature and Prejudicial

After all, since Netanyahu divulged only a small fraction of the seized material, it is somewhat premature and prejudicial to determine whether there are any new, previously unknown elements of any consequence in it.

Moreover, as it stands at the moment, it is impossible to know whether Iran is adhering to the deal, or violating it. For it is precisely in those locations, where such violations are likely to take place — its military sites — that Iran has refused to allow inspections!

Thus, according to an August 2017 report by Reuters, Iran brusquely dismissed a U.S. demand for nuclear inspectors to visit its military bases as “merely a dream."

When U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, pressed the IAEA to seek access to Iranian military bases to ensure that they were not concealing activities banned by the 2015 nuclear deal, an Iranian government spokesman, Mohammad Baqer Nobakht, rejected this outright, “Iran’s military sites are off limits…All information about these sites are classified. Iran will never allow such visits."

Accordingly, given the telling evidence provided by Israel that Iran lied consistently about its weapons program in the past, and given the faulty inspection regime in place today, the cardinal question should not be whether there is any compelling proof that Iran is in breach of the nuclear deal, but whether there is any such proof that it is in compliance with it.

Infuriating and disingenuous

The attempt to justify the deal with Iran as being the only viable alternative to allowing the Islamic Republic to develop nuclear weapons is both infuriating and disingenuous.

It is infuriating because the very acceptance of the 2015 deal flies in the face of repeated prior commitments by the Obama administration to eschew bad deals. Indeed, as John Hannah pointed out in a scathing appraisal of the process led by Obama that culminated in the deal: " . . . the mantra guiding his Iran policy all along has allegedly been 'no deal is better than a bad deal.'"

Moreover, the claim of "no alternative" is disingenuous because it was none other than Obama, who laid out the alternative to the current deal — which assures Iran’s weaponized nuclear capability, permits the production of missiles that can threaten European capitals, provides funds to propagate terrorism and to destabilize pro-U.S. regimes.

After all, in Obama’s own terms, the alternative was "no deal"!
 

Indeed, it was not that opponents of the deal did not offer cogent alternatives.

It was that the proponents designated — and apparently still designate — anything that Iran did not agree to as “impractical” or "unfeasible."

Clearly, if the underlying assumption is that the only "practical" option is a consensual one— i.e. one which Tehran willingly accepts; rather that a coercive one — i.e. one which Tehran is compelled to accept, say, by intensified sanctions, backed by a credible threat of military action — then the proponents of the deal might be right that there was no "available" alternative.

Making Abrogation Inevitable

But by this, they are cutting the ground from under their own feet—and the very logic underlying the deal they endorse.

Indeed, the very assumption that if the deal is abandoned, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons virtually ensures that it will.

For, if the Iranian leadership believes that co-signatories were unwilling to confront a weak, impoverished, non-nuclear, pre-deal Iran with a convincing coercive threat, why would it possibly believe that they would be willing to do so with a greatly empowered and enriched, near-nuclear, post-deal Iran?

Accordingly, if the U.S. and its allies were not willing to confront Tehran with a credible specter of punitive, coercive action, which will compel it to abandon its nuclear program, then clearly there is no inducement for it to adhere to the deal — making its future abrogation inevitable . . . at any time Iran deems expedient.

That is the true — and chilling — significance of the unfounded contention that there is "no other viable alternative."

Dr. Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, dedicated to the preservation and propagation of joint values shared by the USA and Israel as embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Israel’s Declaration of Independence. He served for seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli Defense establishment and acted as a ministerial adviser to Yitzhak Shamir's government. Sherman lectured for 20 years at Tel Aviv University in Political Science, International Relations, and Strategic Studies. He holds several university degrees — B.Sc. (Physics and Geology), MBA (Finance), and PhD in political science/international relations. He was the first academic director of the internationally renowned Herzliya Conference and has authored two books as well as numerous articles and policy papers on a wide range of political, diplomatic and security issues. He was born in South Africa and has lived in Israel since 1971. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
MartinSherman
If the U.S. and its allies were not willing to confront Tehran with a credible specter of punitive, coercive action, which will compel it to abandon its nuclear program, then clearly there is no inducement for it to adhere to the deal, making its future abrogation inevitable.
iaea, miller, tehran
1345
2018-49-04
Friday, 04 May 2018 02:49 PM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved