I am writing to urge you to
approve the agreement among the United States, Iran, Britain, Germany, France,
Russia, China and the EU, under which Iran agrees to restrain its nuclear
program in return for the relaxation of economic sanctions against Iran.
This agreement significantly
restricts Iran’s nuclear program and will make it more difficult for Iran to
develop a nuclear weapon, which it was already prohibited from doing by its
membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT allows members to develop nuclear
energy in almost any way as long as it is not used for military or explosive
purposes. Nuclear energy, scientific
research and medical activities are all allowed, along with the infrastructure
to support those activities. Iran has
agreed to much stricter controls on its program. Its current program will become much smaller
and less threatening, with less nuclear material, less enrichment capability
and less plutonium production capability.
It has agreed to a more intrusive inspection regime than that usually
applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am sure that in addition, the US will use
its own “National Technical Means” of verification like that it has used to
monitor nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union and Russia, and to monitor the
activities of rogue nuclear countries such as Pakistan and North Korea.
For me, however, the main
argument in favor of the agreement is the lack of a better alternative. Without this agreement Iran would only be
bound by the much less restrictive verification measures applied to NPT members,
measures that already applied to Iran without this deal. If this agreement had not been finalized, the
other partners in our sanctions regime against Iran would probably have dropped
out, leaving us with a much weaker regime.
The only non-diplomatic option that I see would be a military attack on
Iran’s nuclear facilities, or perhaps a more generalized attack on the nation
itself, like our earlier invasions of its eastern and western neighbors, Iraq
and Afghanistan. I don’t support such an
attack, and I think that most Americans are weary of war in that region. It’s possible that the agreement could have
been stronger, eliminating more of Iran’s centrifuges, for example, but this
agreement is strong, and more delay might have alienated our partners as well
as the Iranians, possibly jeopardizing any deal at all. The best is often the enemy of the good.
Therefore, I urge you to
support the agreement.
As background, I am a retired
Foreign Service officer who spent ten or more years of my career working on
nuclear non-proliferation issues. I
spent most of my time working on the South American nuclear rivalry between
Argentina and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s.
At times this competition seemed to be following the course of Pakistan
and India, but I was pleased that in the 1980s while I was serving as science
officer at the American Embassy in Brasilia with responsibility for nuclear
issues, Brazil and Argentina agreed to end their nuclear competition. It took some time, but in the 1990s both
countries joined the NPT. While working
on non-proliferation issues, I often crossed paths with other people working on
the issue, such as Richard Clarke, Robert Gallucci, Charles Duelfer, and Gary
Samore. I have been retired for almost
twenty years, but I remain interested in these issues and continue to follow
them.
I was motivated to write this
letter by President Obama’s request on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” that ordinary
Americans do so. I agree with the
President and Secretary of State Kerry that this agreement is good for the US,
and for the world, including Israel and the Sunni Arab countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment