Significant obstacles to an Iranian deal remain, warn experts

Though the self-imposed deadline for an Iranian nuclear agreement is drawing near, experts warn that significant challenges remain.

Addressing a crowd of over 300 D.C. interns and young professionals Tuesday night at an event organized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a bipartisan panel warned that the United States is in a considerably weaker negotiating position than it was when nuclear discussions began. The panel featured former Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey; Ann Lewis, a White House director of Communications for former President Bill Clinton; Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director-general for safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and Aaron David Miller, a former adviser to six secretaries of State.

Woolsey stressed that the principle of mutually assured destruction, which guided American strategic thinking throughout the Cold War, does not apply to Iran. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not a rational actor in the way that Soviet leaders were, he stated. Khamenei harbors religious and ideological objectives that may compel him to use a nuclear weapon even at his own expense.

{mosads}Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, Lewis added, there is no reason to assume that Khamenei would retract his longstanding promise to wipe Israel off the map, or to assume that the weapon would not find its way into one of Iran’s numerous radical client states and organizations.

Another risk of the Iranian nuclear project is that it could trigger a regional arms race, as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have already begun nuclear programs of their own.

A bad deal would leave Iran able to “break out” to nuclearization in a short period of time, a danger the panel warned could not be overstated. Lewis explained that because of this, unfettered access for international nuclear monitors is the most important point in negotiations. Heinonen, citing his own experience in the IAEA, noted Iran’s history of deceiving Western powers on the nuclear issue as evidence that the rogue state cannot be trusted to comply with international agreements without close supervision.

The experts also worried that sanctions relief, a key point that Iranian negotiators are calling non-negotiable, will allow Iran to funnel more money into terrorist groups in the Middle East. Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, and funds groups such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention Islamic jihad and sectarian Popular Mobilization Fronts that have been implicated in massacres of Sunni civilians in Iraq.

Though the situation may seem bleak, Miller suggested that President Obama’s recent domestic victories in healthcare reform and marriage equality have likely provided him with the momentum and motivation to take decisive action in the region and refuse any deal that would be detrimental to U.S. interests. As Obama reiterated in a press briefing Tuesday morning, “I’ve said from the start I will walk away from the negotiations if, in fact, it’s a bad deal. If we can’t provide assurances that the pathways for Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon are closed, and if we can’t verify that, if the inspections regime — the verification regime is inadequate, then we’re not going to get a deal. And we’ve been very clear to the Iranian government about that.”

Adkins and Gladstone are Tower Tomorrow fellows at The Israel Project.