The famous adage of thinking globally, but acting locally applies to the current debate over U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. This issue is hardly remote from Los Angeles. The local press, including the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, has opened up a serious debate on the proposed nuclear deal between Iran on one side, and the P5+1 countries on the other: The United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany. A “framework” for a final agreement was announced on April 2. The L.A. Times immediately supported the deal and called for giving it a chance. The L.A. Daily News noted the deal extracted critical concessions from Iran, but worried that it would project U.S. weakness.
Meanwhile the Jewish Journal strongly panned the deal in a column by its publisher, David Suissa. He called the framework “a dangerous lemon.” But Mr. Suissa distorts most aspects of the framework agreement. To promote a serious local discussion over the U.S. government’s rapprochement with Iran, I offer a counterpoint to his arguments.
Mr. Suissa says that Iran was “two or three months” from nuclear breakout, meaning the country had enough 90n percent enriched uranium to build a bomb. But despite the Chicken Little warnings, Iran never was just a few months from breakout. Iran had some 20 percent enriched uranium before the 2013 “interim” agreement (that kick-started the talks that led to the April 2 framework agreement) in which Iran agreed to neutralize its 20 percent enriched uranium and promised not to enrich above 5 percent used in power reactors. Even 20 percent enriched uranium is a long way from the 90 percent needed for a bomb.
Mr. Suissa acknowledges that the framework extends Iran’s breakout time to over a year, but belittles that difference, insinuating that no matter what inspection protocol is in place, Iran will still cheat. Not only is there no evidence that Iran will cheat on inspections, but also according to Israel’s newspaper of record, Ha’Aretz, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said his real fear is that Iran will abide by the agreement. In fact, Mr. Suissa reaches the belief that Iran will cheat because that is what Israel did when it misled France and the United States about its nuclear reactor in Dimona. Since Israel cheated to develop its nuclear bombs, Mr. Suissa assumes that Iran has the same low standards and will cheat.
Compared to Osama Killing
Then Mr. Suissa belittles the 10-year inspection schedule, suggesting that at the end of that interval Iran will turn its nuclear program inside out in a matter of days. He says that Iran will not have to dismantle any of its nuclear facilities, but Mr. Suissa does not acknowledge that under the negotiated framework Iran must convert its facility at Fordow so it can no longer be used to enrich uranium.
Furthermore, enrichment at Iran’s Natanz site will be limited to 3.75 percent, using outdated centrifuges. Finally, no new enrichment facilities can be built under the deal.
Mr. Suissa says that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities will be more like the assassination of Osama bin Laden than the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Not likely according to all military experts, including Israel’s. Even limited airstrikes would require a massive military operation that would start with American warplanes destroying Iran’s air defense capabilities using “long-range bombers, drones, electronic warfare, land-based fighter bombers, carrier aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missiles.” Follow-on airstrikes would then destroy known nuclear facilities, a military action far beyond Israel’s capabilities. Furthermore, the introduction of the new Russian air defense system in Iran further complicates any aerial attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities .
Mr. Suissa argues that under the deal “thousands of centrifuges are to be allowed to keep on spinning.” That is true in one sense. The deal allows Iran to use 5,000 old-model centrifuges to enrich uranium and another 1,000 for research only. What Mr. Suissa does not realize is that today Iran has about 19,000 centrifuges, many with up-to-date technology. So the deal reduces Iran’s enrichment capability to a small fraction of what it has today because of earlier international failures to reach a negotiated settlement with Iran.
Mr. Suissa insinuates that Mr. Obama is going for this “bad deal” because he is desperate to achieve a foreign policy success. I hope that is the case. The deal that Mr. Obama is negotiating stops Iran from building a nuclear bomb, if that was even Iran’s intention, a conclusion challenged by both U.S. and Israel intelligence agencies.
Finally, Mr. Suissa worries that Iran will eventually attempt to develop a nuclear bomb. I share that worry. The ultimate driver for Iran to build a nuclear bomb is Israel’s arsenal of 100 or more nuclear bombs, as well as its endless threats to attack Iran. What is needed is a Middle East nuclear-free zone. I doubt Mr. Suissa would support that because it would mean that Israel would be required to give up its nuclear arsenal of nuclear bombs.
In this violent part of the world, diplomacy is the only way to stop a technologically sophisticated country like Iran from developing nuclear bombs to match Israel’s. Mr. Obama is well aware that, at most, bombing will only delay Iran for a 2-4 year period, while giving Iran an unchallengeable right to develop nuclear weapons.
While this debate might seem remote in Los Angeles, it is important enough for us to not only closely follow the issues, but do all we can to avert another Middle Eastern conflagration.
This essay originally appeared in citywatchla.com. Mr. Warner, Action Coordinator of L.A. Jews for Peace, may be contacted at info@lajewsforpeace.org
