Let’s start with the premise that Sen. Tom Cotton (a) doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and (b) is a saber-rattling warmonger. In short, a dangerous loose cannon. Those are safe bets in almost any debate, and especially this one. I’m not a nuclear expert; but neither is he. I give credence to what experts say; he likes to hear himself talk. In this article, I write about what expert opinion is, which counts for something, and ignore his no-valued-added fulminations.
Mother Jones journalist David Corn, as introduction, points out that, “Nuclear nonproliferation is a subject that depends upon science … [a]nd it is difficult for nonexperts to assess any nonproliferation agreement. … What counts is whether the technical means of inspection agreed upon are deemed sufficient to monitor the nuclear program, materials, supply chain, and facilities that remain.”
Then he asks, “Who can tell?” and answers, “Well, there are nonproliferation experts. A fair number, in fact. These are scientists and policy mavens who are trained to study and answer [these] questions ….” So, he asked them. Here’s a rundown of their responses.
Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a former national security aide to Sen. John McCain, and a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: “It can block both an Iranian nuclear threat and a nuclear arms race in the region ….”
Matthew Bunn, professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and coprincipal investigator at the Project on Managing the Atom: “The proposed deal is the best chance to stop an Iranian Bomb. … The credible alternatives—a return to sanctions or military strikes—pose significantly higher risks to US and world security.”
Dan Joyner, University of Alabama School of Law professor, author of International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and contributor to ArmsControlLaw.com: “Iran is the party that made the most obvious significant concessions in this framework agreement.”
Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran: “Mr. Samore … said in an email that the deal was a ‘very satisfactory resolution of Fordo [enrichment facility] and Arak [plutonium reactor] issues for the 15-year term’ of the accord. He had more questions about operations at Natanz [enrichment facility] …. Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, ‘It appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters’ [but] cautioned that ‘Iran maintains enrichment capacity … beyond its near-term needs.'”
Joseph Cirincione, president of of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, and former director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “The agreement … blocks all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb. It imposes tough inspections to catch Iran should it try to break out, sneak out, or creep out of the deal. And it keeps our coalition united to enforce the deal. Under this deal, Iran … will not be able to make any uranium or plutonium for a bomb. Many of the restrictions in the agreement continue for 25 years and some—like the inspections and the ban on building nuclear weapons—last forever.”
Frank von Hippel, an expert with Princeton’s Science and International Security Program: “There are still details to be filled in, but I like it a lot .… On transparency, it looks like they really are doing a lot.”
Corn concludes, “As many have noted in the past day, a framework is only a framework. There are plenty of tough and complicated details to sort out. The deal may fall apart, especially with conservatives in both Washington and Tehran—and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his crew—sniping away and looking to subvert any agreement. But as the heated debate continues, it will be important that nonproliferation experts play a critical role in the discourse. Science-based statements, not snarky sound bites, should be the weapons of choice.”
We live in a democracy, where a dummy’s vote counts as much as anyone’s, and it’s fairly easy for ignorant knee-jerkers to elect irresponsible demagogues to positions of power. Democracy, for all its virtues, has a tendency to reduce political discourse to the lowest common denominator. We’d better all hope and pray that, for once, science wins over snark. It isn’t the Tom Cottons of the world who got us to the moon or will find a cure for cancer.
A war against Iran wouldn’t be pretty. Guaranteed to kill many civilians, it would perpetuate enmity between our nations, and provoke retaliation against our country and people. That’s too high a price to pay for the visceral satisfaction the rubes would get from putting juveniles who view the world as a videogame in charge of war and peace.