Why is Negotiating with Iran a Good Idea?

By doing so, the United States can gain leverage with Iran-backed groups such as the Houthis, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime, that may prove productive in the fight against ISIS and in efforts to mediate an end to the Syrian civil war. Perhaps even more importantly, through P5+1 administered talks, the United States is acknowledging Iran’s legitimacy as a fellow nation and will thus be able to bring it into the Western sphere of influence. The current policy of delegitimizing Iran’s security concerns allows the United States no control over Iran’s actions, as Iran has no incentive to abide by a US-dictated standard. It is objectively counterproductive.

Still, some try to justify this perspective. Those so stridently opposed to the negotiations are convinced that Iran is the core of the resistance axis, and without Iranian support, its alleged proxies, Hezbollah and the Houthis, will cease to exist. This ignorance damages US strategic interests and overestimates Iranian influence. Both Hezbollah and the Houthis are independent entities with their own national ambitions, and whether or not they receive funding and training from Iran is largely irrelevant. Their ambitions and capabilities will persist past any possible Iranian demise, as they will seek new forms of funding to maintain their unique ideological interests. The view that Iran is the queen in a colony of ants undermines the agency of other related actors in the Middle East, simplifying the issue for those with a superficial understanding of the region and compromising US security.

We differ from Ginsberg in our insistence on researching and proposing ideas that are diplomatically constructive to US interests. We thoroughly support President Obama in his efforts to maintain autonomy on the global stage, his constitutionally given right. The United States toppled the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh and subsequently installed the much-loathed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. The Shah’s rule then fostered the dire conditions that allowed for the successful Iranian Revolution in 1979. Simultaneously, US-Iranian relations dramatically worsened with the hostage crisis from 1979 to 1981. With the changes in the worldwide balance of power that have occurred since, it is now time to work with the Iranian people, with whom we have considerable common ground, rather than against them.

Ginsberg, as stated, aptly lists all the places in which Iran is involved. While he believes that the best course of action is continued sanctions rather than diplomacy, it is important to realize that sitting down with Iran does not imply ignoring Iranian involvement and intervention in the region. Rather, it is a recognition of such involvement and the need to deal accordingly.

It should be noted that funding or supporting terrorist organizations is by no means an indicator of illegitimacy or irrationality for a state actor. The United States itself supported the Mujahedeen (precursor to Al Qaeda and the Al-Nusra Front) against the Soviets. Further, Saudi Arabia continues to fund Wahhabist schools that support extremist terrorism and violent thought. In addition, another US ally, Pakistan, has supported multiple strains of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Baluchistan, only recently acceding that this may not have been wise. The Pakistani armed forces and secret service also have turned a blind eye to multiple terrorist attacks against India. Another striking example would be Israel’s extremely recent collaborations with al-Nusra and its history of collaboration with groups that oppose Hezbollah and Hamas. Under Ginsberg’s line of thinking, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel would be deemed illegitimate states, despite the fact that they are key US allies. With this in mind, sitting down with Iran is emblematic of acknowledging its influence in the region and cultivating a strong relationship with it in order to exercise greater sway over its vast regional power.

It is our wholehearted belief that there is a rampant ignorance that pervades much of the discussion on the US-Iran negotiations. In his most recent article, Matthew Jarrell discusses Benjamin Netanyahu’s tactless speech to Congress, in which this was clearly evident. The address, along with Tom Cotton’s disgraceful follow-up letter, deeply insulted the intelligence of the American people and were clear attempts to undermine the President’s authority. In a very telling piece of satire, the New Yorker’s Andy Borowitz wrote that “Iran feels it must offer itself as a peacemaker,” as both Republicans and Democrats seem to speak more to Iran than to each other. Tom Cotton’s bold lack of hesitancy in disgracing the United States may imply an intercession on behalf of certain lobbying groups or special interests, such as the powerful Israeli lobby. Therefore, we must remember at all times whose national interests our government seeks to serve. Evidently, Netanyahu’s speech places supposed Israeli interests above American interests in a speech in the United States to an American public. Netanyahu’s speech and Cotton’s diatribe insulted Israeli, Iranian, and US integrity and intelligence, purposely moving behind the backs of the Israeli, Iranian and American people and those of their respective intelligence services (all of which agree that the war Netanyahu and Cotton wish for is unwinnable and unnecessary).

The negotiations themselves are also worth a look. The terms are agreed on by the P5+1, which includes the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany. The talks stem from international concern that Iran is using its nuclear enrichment program to build weapons, though Iran insists it is not. These contentions are, however, irrelevant to how the matter should be handled. In November 2013, the two sides made considerable progress through the first-phase agreement that froze some of the most sensitive nuclear activities Iran was conducting at the time in return for sanctions relief.

Since the talks are still ongoing, it is difficult to confirm what exactly is on the table today. We know that Iran will need to reduce its number of currently installed centrifuges from 20,0000 to 6,000. It will also need to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium from approximately 8,000kg to below 1,000. In return, sanctions will be lifted in an incremental and controlled manner. Not only will Iran’s nuclear capacity be mitigated drastically, but it will also need to accept the most rigorous monitoring mechanism that has “ever been implemented on a nuclear program in the world.” These are reasonable terms, as they would keep Iran away from a bomb for long enough for the United States or an international coalition to intervene. Anyone doubting the American ability and motivation to proceed with such measures should refer to the 2010 Stuxnet cyberattack allegedly released by the NSA and Mossad that caused Iranian centrifuges at Natanz to tear themselves apart.. Any further doubt on the part of the P5+1 to implement such stringent rules would be equivalent to doubting the capabilities of the US, UK, French, Chinese, Russian, and German intelligence services and armed forces. Such concerns are, quite simply, entirely unwarranted.

Thus, we have outlined both the strategic necessity of a deal and the reality that a solid one is on the table right now. This is the furthest US-Iranian negotiations have ever come, and to obstruct the deal at this point would heavily damage this incredible progress. If Republicans and Netanyahu succeed in hindering the deal, Iran will retain its heavy water reactor that produces enough plutonium for one nuclear weapon a year. With a deal, this reactor would be converted and would produce less than one kilogram of plutonium per year, which means it would take Iran eight years to accumulate enough plutonium to build a weapon. Furthermore, from its own perspective, Iran will not only have sanctions relief, but will also be able to “find its way back to the international market.” This would pave the way for trade deals with the European Union and the United States, giving Iran more accountability and making the stakes even higher for them to not produce weapons of mass destruction. Those opposed to a deal seem to be trying to keep Iran from developing into a player in the global free market and subsequently a more democratic nation. This stands in direct opposition to a pillar of modern US policy goals.

If America wants to maintain global dominance as the “greatest nation in the world,” it must first acknowledge that there is a multifaceted world out there to run. Pushing the nuclear deal through is a critical way to begin doing this, and resetting a regional policy that is in desperate need of overhaul. Is it really so difficult to acknowledge Iran as a rational actor and hold it accountable to a set of fair US and UN-dictated standards in exchange for continued US global dominance and a slow elimination of the Iranian threat? The alternative is a useless war from which no one benefits. Instead, reasonable people everywhere should continue to stand up to Netanyahu, Cotton, and others who would throw the potential for peace away in a flourish of misguided military bravado.