Clearly, Congress has an important role in implementing any comprehensive, final-phase agreement between the P5+1 andIranto ensureIrans nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful. Those talks are now underway inVienna.In that role, members of the Senate and House have a responsibility to support the efforts of the P5+1 on the basis of a clear understanding and realistic expectation for what the negotiations can deliver and for what is necessary to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
In aletter to the Presidentsigned by 83 Senators that was released today by the American Israel Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the members helpfully express their support for the P5+1 negotiations withIranand their commitment to working with the President on a bipartisan basis.
However, the letter outlines a number of ambiguous and, in some cases, factually-challenged statements that undermine the letters value as a guide for what might constitute a successful nuclear negotiation withIran.
Most significantly, the letter begins by stating that We all hope that nuclear negotiations succeed in preventingIranfrom ever developing a nuclear weapons capability.
Unfortunately,Iranalready has a nuclear weapons capability. According to theU.S. intelligence communityIranhas had, at least since 2007, the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it were to choose to do so.
Today,Irans nuclear weapons capacity can be significantly reducedbut not entirely eliminated, even itIranwere required to dismantle its uranium enrichment machines and facilities, as some of the signatories of the Senate letter have argued.
Elsewhere in the Senators letter calls for preventing Iran from ever developing or building nuclear weapons, which is closer to the stated goal of the Obama administration and the United States P5+1 partners.
The conflicting language on this point undermines AIPACs assertion that the letter is an overwhelming demonstration by the U.S. Senate of its determination to preventIranfrom achieving nuclear weapons capability.
There is a difference between stoppingIranshort of having a nuclear weapons capability and stopping it short of building nuclear weapons and AIPAC andU.S.Senators should be more careful in their statements about what they are seeking.
The Senators letter also suggests that one of the principles that theUnited Statesshould insist on is that any agreement must dismantleIrans nuclear weapons program and prevent it from ever having a uranium or plutonium path to the bomb.
An similar letter being circulated by Reps. Cantor and Hoyer that is also being pushed by AIPAC in the House includes similar language. That letter expresses the hope that a permanent diplomatic agreement will require the dismantlement ofIrans nuclear weapons-related infrastructure .
How such a principle can or should be implemented in practical terms is not clear. From a technical standpoint, uranium enrichment facilities, virtually any nuclear reactor, or research on such fuel cycle technologies has civil and military applications.
While it is possible to put in place more intrusive inspections to improve the international communitys ability to detect and deter weapons related experiments and the potential diversion of nuclear material to undeclared facilities, the dismantling of Irans major dual-use facilities and programs would be politically unsustainable in Iran, and is not necessary in order to stop Iran short of building nuclear weapons.
What the negotiations can potentially deliver and what members of Congress should expect and support is a final phase P5+1 agreement with Iranthat:
1)establishes verifiable limits on Irans nuclear program that, taken together, substantially increase the time it would take for Iran to break out of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and build nuclear weapons;
2)increases the ability to promptly detect and effectively respond to any attempt byIranto pursue nuclear weapons, including at undeclared sites and facilities; and
3)decreasesIrans incentive to pursue nuclear weapons in the future.
Aswe have written elsewhere, there are realistic options that can address each of the main concerns aboutIrans nuclear program. But if Congress insists on unattainable outcomes or seeks to impose vague requirements on the negotiators, the chances for a diplomatic resolution will decrease,Irans nuclear capabilities may grow, and the chances of a conflict will increase.
By Lobe Log
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
