Can we get a nuclear deal with Iran?
In diplomacy, always leave your adversary an honorable avenue of retreat. Fifty years ago this October, to resolve a Cuban missile crisis that had brought us to the brink of nuclear war, JFK did that.
Is the United States willing to allow Iran an honorable avenue of retreat if it halts enrichment of uranium to 20 percent and permits intrusive inspections of all its nuclear facilities? Or are U.S. sanctions designed to bring about not a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue, but regime change, the fall of the Islamic Republic and its replacement by a more pliable regime? If the latter is the case, we are likely headed for war with Iran.
What would cause anyone to believe Iran is willing to negotiate?
There are the fatwas by the ayatollahs against nuclear weapons and the consensus by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reaffirmed in 2011, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Nor has the United States or Israel discovered any site devoted to the building of nuclear weapons. The facility at Fordow is enriching uranium to 20 percent. There are no reports of any enrichment to 90 percent, which is weapons grade.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has mocked the idea of Iran building a bomb in the face of a U.S. commitment to go to war to prevent it. And Tehran seems to be signaling it is ready for a deal.
According to the United Nations watchdog agency, Iran recently converted more than one-third of its 20 percent enriched uranium into uranium oxide, a powder for its medical research reactor.
The New York Times also reported Thursday that Iran had proposed to European officials a plan to suspend enrichment of uranium in return for the lifting of sanctions. By week's end, Iran was denying it.
Yet common sense suggests that if Iran is not determined to build a nuclear weapon, it will eventually come to the table. Iran already has enough 20 percent enriched uranium for medical isotopes and more than enough 5 percent enriched uranium for its power plant. Further enrichment gives Iran nothing in the way of added security, but it does ensure that the sanctions will be sustained and perhaps tightened. And those sanctions are creating tremendous hardships on the Iranian people.
In two weeks, Iran's currency has lost a third of its value. Iran's oil exports are a third of what they were a year ago. The cost of food and medicine is soaring. Inflation is running officially at 25 percent. Foreign travel is drying up. Workers are going unpaid. In short, the oil embargo and economic sanctions are working, and Ahmadinejad is rapidly losing support.
So a new question is on the table. If Iran advances ideas to demonstrate that it has no weapons program, but insists on what President Obama said he supports — Iran having a peaceful nuclear program under U.N. inspection — will America accept that?
Or will we make demands so humiliating no Iranian government can accept them, because our true goal is regime change?
No one would weep if the Islamic Republic fell. But this is a tough crowd. If we give them only a choice between humiliation and escalation, the hard-liners in the regime and Republican Guard will likely take the death-before-dishonor course.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Starkey: Pirates gaining bad big-game rep
- Steelers quarterback Vick getting more acquainted with offense
- Pitt O-line responds to coach’s challenge
- Pirates notebook: Fastball command issues hurt Cole against Cubs
- Steelers hoping to establish run early against San Diego
- Hydrangeas flower year after year with proper care, placement, feeding
- Penn State coaches are happy with quarterback Hackenberg’s play
- NFL notebook: Ex-Pitt RB Lewis signs 2-year extension with Patriots
- What’s old is new at Toll Gate Revival in Lawrenceville
- Ten Commandments monument moved to its new home in Connellsville
- Rossi: Cole is simply not good enough for Pirates