A great deal of debate has arisen in wake of the administration’s controversial deal with Iran, and political figures around the world have weighed in with a full spectrum of opinions on the outcome of the deal.
Many of the critics have rightly focused on the sunset facet of the deal, which frees Iran from its obligations after a period of ten years.
Not only does Iran get to continue its nuclear weapons development (as it would if no deal existed), but it also gets all economic sanctions lifted and a signing bonus of approximately $150 billion in the form of unfrozen foreign assets.
A bad deal is certainly worse than no deal at all, especially since Iran is required to slow its research only for a few years in exchange for reaping these benefits.
In addition to the deal’s many other shortcomings, a great deal of discussion has centered on alternative courses of action to the deal.
Specifically, debate has focused on whether an improved agreement is even possible.
Some argue that any deal Iran would agree to sign would fail to halt their relentless quest for the bomb.
As such, they argue, going to war is the only way to keep the ayatollahs from going nuclear.
Any deal with enough teeth to halt Iran’s troublesome program would fail to meet the approval of the Iranian negotiators. In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Norman Podhoretz argued:
“Iran would never agree to the terms [Obama’s] critics imagine could be imposed … If the objective remains preventing Iran from getting the bomb, the only way to do so is to bomb Iran … No deal that Iran would conceivably agree to sign could do the trick, leaving war as the only alternative.”
Such a dichotomy presents a false choice. A better alternative to the Iran deal exists, and it does not necessitate violent military action.
Countless people on both sides of the congressional aisle who have examined the current deal with Iran agree that it fails on multiple levels.
A quality deal would, at the very least, not expire after a set period of time and leave Iran free to research and develop as it sees fit.
Congress could take numerous different courses of action to make this happen.
A better deal than this one is not a fantasy, but a very plausible option.
Tough economic sanctions, for instance, brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place, and continued and more severe sanctions would play a large role in keeping them there.
Even the administration has agreed that sanctions were slowing down Iran’s nuclear activities.
The P5+1 nations, which negotiated the deal, have no need to accept the current deal as the sole alternative to war.
As The Heritage Foundation wrote previously:
A credible alternative to this dangerous deal with Iran is to maintain U.S. and U.N. sanctions (or unilateral U.S. sanctions if necessary), keep the military option on the table, and work with partners in the Middle East to force Tehran to accept much tighter restrictions on its nuclear plans.
The choice is not between the current deal and no deal, nor is it between the current deal and war (as the administration has alleged).
The choice is especially not between conventional war now and nuclear war later. A third option has been overlooked in the hubbub: Negotiate a better deal than the one we have now, one that actually keeps Iran from going nuclear.
