U.N. reps: Implementation of nuclear accord tenuous, but Iran complying
As the 2016 presidential election season drags into its final weeks (mercifully!), the United States’ nuclear pact with Iran becomes an ever more popular campaign topic, especially for the Republican candidate. “The worst deal ever made, proposed, or conceived in the entire history of the universe,” or something to that effect. How bad is it, though? Is it possible that, although not ideal, it’s a step in the right direction?
A couple of quick facts (as unpopular as facts might be in the presidential debates): 1) The accord with Tehran is a ten-year framework. As such, it need not encompass the be-all, end-all deal that many claim they could secure if given a chance. 2) The Democratic candidate (and others) says the compact “puts a lid” on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. You might be surprised at how valuable such idioms are to politicians! Why? Because they sound tough and final, while actually meaning almost nothing. However, my interpretation of it is that agreement buys us time to continue negotiating while risking no reasonable threat from a nuclear Iran.
Though implementing the terms is proving to be a delicate and intricate undertaking, United Nations special envoys say Iran is in compliance. Also, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that, while the implementation process is “fragile,” Iran has stayed within the limits of the pact. While the IAEA chief cites a lack of trust between the two nations as the central cause for foot-dragging on both sides, President Obama has often pointed out that the deal isn’t based on trust. The IAEA’s presence as the primary supervising entity in charge of assessing Tehran’s compliance, to some degree, proves the president’s point.
Yet, there’s always an armchair quarterback, isn’t there? Shouting, “Hey! I could have done much better than THAT. That was terrible!” You know, “I’m the deal man, and that’s the worst deal!” As if Iran’s nuclear weapons program were as simple as a real estate deal in Atlantic City. Just go in there and impose your will on the other party – yeah, right!
Returning to the football analogy for a moment, you can field the most experienced team, well-practiced and ready, but you still have to consider that there’s going to be another team there that also wants to win! Sometimes, despite everything appearing to be in your team’s favor, you lose. In these negotiations, to lose would be to accept an Iran with nuclear warheads. That scenario being wholly unacceptable, the deal can be seen as a win. You’d think someone who supposedly wins all the time would recognize that.
My upcoming novel, ULTIMATE ERROR, is about selfishness and greed to the extreme. The type that sometimes accompanies psychopathy. Will we continue to afford the highest executive power to these men and women? Germany made that ERROR one too many times, in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. Will the United States repeat that dreadful history? One thing is certain: The psychopaths are gunning for it.