US should negotiate for a better Iran deal


In the past few weeks, Democratic leaders have been scrambling to garner support — largely from their own party — for the Iran deal. There has been bipartisan opposition in both Congress and in the general public. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, who many believe will take over Harry Reid’s position as Senate Democratic leader, has publicly opposed the deal, and 56 percent of Americans think Congress should reject the deal, according to a new CNN-ORC poll. Those in favor of it claim that the alternative is war.

This rhetoric worries hundreds of thousands of Iranian-Americans in this country, many of whom live in Los Angeles. Here at USC, many Iranian-American students worry for their families and the Iranian people as a whole, and this deal gives them hope. Supporters of the deal have perpetuated a false dilemma — they assert that our only two options are approving this deal or going to war with Iran. As a result, many of those USC students and other Iranian-Americans might believe that the deal allows the U.S. to avoid conflict with Iran. They don’t want their family members to have to suffer the inevitable destruction a war would bring to Iran. They also recognize the negative domestic implications war with Iran carries for Iranian-Americans — misguided leadership and fervent public emotion could lead to persecution of Iranian-American citizens should war break out. These concerns are well-founded and earnest, but the Iran deal is not the solution.

Those in favor of the deal assume that when sanctions are lifted, Iran will experience economic relief, which translates into financial relief for the average Iranian citizen. This assumption fails to recognize that the Iranian economy is not driven by market forces; the economic health of the country is at the mercy of the government. Almost all of the new income and wealth generated from the deal will fall into the hands of the ayatollahs and their cronies. The $150 billion worth of frozen assets that is inexplicably being returned to Iran will only further empower this group of enormously wealthy religious extremists. In effect, this deal enables the Iranian government, arguably the most egregious abuser of human rights in the world, to continue to line its own pockets while it kills Iranian citizens.

Not only does the deal threaten the Iranian people, but it also — contrary to the assertions of those in favor of the deal — endangers U.S. national security and increases the likelihood of eventual war. The deal allows Iran to maintain the infrastructure necessary to develop a nuclear bomb. It allows Iran to continue enriching a small amount of uranium every year, and to continue some levels of nuclear research. To give these concessions to a country that has violated agreements regarding its nuclear program a countless number of times is foolish.

Iran cannot be trusted, and this is a deal based on trust. In 15 years, the restrictions on enrichment will expire. By this time, Iran will have the resources to expedite development of nuclear warheads. When that happens, the U.S. will not have the options it has now — it will almost certainly be forced to go to war.

To believe Iran will not do everything it can to build a weapons program is to forget that the Iranian government is the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism; it is to forget that the Iranian government organizes “Death to America” rallies while stifling popular protests for peace with violence. Tragically, a portion of the money that Iran receives as a result of this deal will likely go to groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas that use a perverted view of Islam to justify horrific acts of violence and war. These groups have specifically targeted America as the ultimate enemy.

All of this is not to say that Secretary of State John Kerry did not have good intentions negotiating this deal. The intentions of those who favor the deal are also undoubtedly good. But the U.S cannot afford to lose leverage. The concessions Iran made seem unsubstantial compared to the ones the U.S. made.  U.S. leaders did not even make an earnest effort to bring home the American hostages Iran is holding.

The alternative to this deal is not war — it’s a better deal. Iranian-Americans need to recognize that anything that empowers the Iranian government endangers the Iranian people, and all American citizens need to recognize that the Iranian government and the Iranian people are two different entities. Any Iranian-American who has visited the country will tell you that most people living there hold America in high regard. Iranian people want peace, and this deal brings nothing but uncertainty.

2 replies
  1. Don Harmon
    Don Harmon says:

    Too late, Nima. Iran has outsmarted Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry and has achieved what it wanted: The end of sanctions and freedom to proceed without effective inspections of its nuclear weapons production. Further, the Dem leadership has lined up enough votes to assure that Congress will not be able to nix the deal. And our allies, desperate for trade with Iran, especially for oil, are rushing to sign huge new contracts with the mighty Ayatollahs. How about this? Did you notice that the UK has now re-opened its embassy in Iran?

    Was the deal good for the US? Bad? Not particularly. Iran will begin violating it immediately, and there is nothing we can do to reinstate the sanctions. If nothing else, this deal was simply a silly, empty exercise to show that Mr. Obama is a great statesman, able to negotiate “deals” with a virulent enemy. But this is not new. UK PM Neville Chamberlain thought that he had achieved a similar brilliant diplomatic triumph at the Munich Conference back in 1938. In fact, he announced that he was positive that Adolf Hitler was honest, sincere, and could be trusted. Right. Just like the Iranian ayatollahs of today.

  2. Liberty Minded
    Liberty Minded says:

    Why does there need to be a “deal” with Iran? Why cannot they choose their own destiny like every other nation? There is no single atomic bomb or score of bombs that threaten the very existence of these united states. Why do the leaders of the USA seek to guide the destiny of ANY other nation?

Comments are closed.