Iran Nuclear Plan: Editorial Roundup

 

 

 

“The preliminary agreement between Iran and the major powers is a significant achievement that makes it more likely Iran will never be a nuclear threat. President Obama said it would ‘cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.’

 

“Officials said some important issues have not been resolved, like the possible lifting of a United Nations arms embargo, and writing the technical sections could also cause problems before the deal’s finalization, expected by June 30. Even so, the agreement announced on Thursday after eight days of negotiations appears more specific and comprehensive than expected.”

 

 

“Iran and the so-called P5+1 — the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — announced "parameters" for an agreement that were highly specific and, frankly, somewhat reassuring. At a minimum they justify continued negotiations with the aim of producing a final compact by the end of June. In the meantime, Congress should refrain from aggressive actions that could undermine the delicate process.”

 

 

 

“The broad parameters of the deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program, which were laid out on Thursday after marathon negotiation sessions in the Swiss city of Lausanne, offer the best chance in 35 years to thaw relations between the Islamic Republic and the West. The agreement isn’t perfect, nor is it final. But the concessions made by Iranian diplomats, and the level of specificity offered to the public, show that all sides were negotiating in good faith. It is now up to Congress to give the negotiators the time they need to finalize the deal — and they should do so by refraining from proposing more sanctions that could jeopardize months of hard work.”

 

 

 

“It will never be an easy deal to accept. But perfection is not one of the choices. Either the deal will be completed, or hard-liners on one side or the other will get the confrontation they seek.

 

The consequences will be historic, but before setting a course for war, it's usually best to at least give peace a chance, particularly since all other options will remain open if the agreement fails.”

 

 

“The framework's scope and strength are promising. Congress should refrain from passing any legislation that would impose additional sanctions and mandates on the talks, or otherwise seek to tie the president's hands.

 

For many critics of the negotiations with Iran in the U.S. Congress -- not to mention Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- the bottom line remains the elimination of Iran's uranium enrichment capability. Yet a dozen years of diplomacy and progressively stiffer sanctions have failed to produce that outcome, which even a costly and bloody military action could not guarantee.”

 

 

 

“It may well be that further analysis reveals fatal flaws in the deal, or that Iran has a very different view of it, or that negotiators cannot overcome remaining obstacles as the June 30 deadline approaches. But as Congress considers whether sanctions should someday be lifted, it shouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The real naivete is among those who think Iran can be pressured into eliminating its nuclear program altogether or say the U.S. must never negotiate with an untrustworthy regime.”

 

 

 

“Cautious optimism is the appropriate response to the framework for a nuclear weapons deal worked out with Iran by the Obama administration and its international partners. The outline suggests a pact that will be stronger than expected, even as the details to be negotiated in coming months will be critical in determining its effectiveness.

 

The agreement falls short of achieving the goals initially spelled out by the White House. But it does place enough restrictions on Iran's nuclear program to offer at least some hope its ambitions to produce a weapon will be significantly delayed, if not completely deterred.”

 

 

 

 

“The ‘key parameters’ for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.”

 

 

 

“The fundamental question posed by President Obama’s Iran diplomacy has always been whether it can prevent a nuclear-armed Middle East—in Iran as well as Turkey and the Sunni Arab states. Mr. Obama unveiled a “framework” accord on Thursday that he said did precisely that, but the claims warrant great skepticism.”

 

 

 

“Before either the American people or Congress endorse this tentative pact, they need assurances that the deal will be enforced with vigorous independent monitoring of a sort Iran has never permitted. They need guarantees that there will be a very low tolerance for Iranian noncompliance. And they need reasons to believe that Obama and Kerry know what they are doing and have thought through possible unintended consequences.”

 

 

 

“Even if Kerry doesn’t give away even more when it comes to working out the fine print, the framework leaves intact most of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, including 5,000 centrifuges the West once wanted eliminated.”

 

“Iran has repeatedly stonewalled international inspectors for a decade, and there’s no reason to believe it will suddenly cooperate once sanctions are gone.”

 

 

 

“Under the best of circumstances, Israel will be left to live for at least a decade under the dreadful shadow of a government sworn to its annihilation having the power of Armageddon within easy grasp. Fearful Arab states could move to match Iran as threshold nuclear strongmen in hopes of countering its expanding regional domination.”