Obama’s Nuclear Deal Could Mean War

4 minute read
Ideas
Gabriel Scheinmann is Director of Policy at The Jewish Policy Center.

The Obama Administration may be on the verge of completing a deal that leaves Iran with a substantial nuclear capability, but about a year away from a bomb’s worth of fissile material. By not insisting on the dismantlement of any major nuclear infrastructure, or even on the complete cessation of enrichment activities, the White House is betting that not only is Iran likely to heed the deal, but also that the United States would have enough time to act appropriately and decisively if it does not. Believing it has headed-off the seemingly unavoidable march towards war with Iran, the White House is crowing about its impending diplomatic feat.

Unfortunately, rather than obviating the likelihood of war, this deal encourages it. For different reasons, inking this accord increases the chances that both Israel and the United States take military action against Iran to stop its nuclear pursuits. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger aptly concluded in recent Congressional testimony, the goal of the nuclear talks has evolved “from preventing proliferation to managing it.” In doing so, the Administration has sown the seeds of future conflict.

For Israel, the deal represents the failure of its decade-long effort to prevent Iranian proliferation. Unquestionably, the country has believed that it would not only be better to dismantle Iran’s program through non-military means, but also, if that option proved impossible, that the United States would take the lead in destroying Iran’s nuclear assets. The deal reveals that neither is true. The Obama Administration has chosen to tolerate rather than disassemble a vast Iranian nuclear program. Having an understandably much lower threshold for what it can tolerate due to its proximity to Iran and the regime’s heinous history, Israel may feel that it now has no choice but to take matters into its own hands, no matter how unattractive the consequences.

Ironically, the deal also likely commits the United States to future military action against Iran. Even the modest restrictions imposed will be removed in a decade, by which time Iran’s warhead and delivery mechanism will be fully operational. If, as time goes by, Washington realizes that it is unintentionally midwifing an Iranian bomb, it will have little choice but to abrogate the accord itself. Faced with the prospect of not just a nuclear-capable but also a nuclear-armed Iran, Washington may be compelled to preempt this scenario.

Moreover, the assumption of Iranian perfidy is baked into this deal. If merely a treaty-bound commitment were enough, then Iran’s longstanding membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should suffice. The concept of any additional negotiations suggests, quite rightly, that Iran is likely to vitiate its own assurances. The one-year break-out time is intended to give the U.S. enough of a lead to identify Iranian cheating and marshal the international community to re-impose sanctions that will make the country heel. Hardly a chess novice, Iran would see that it has nothing to gain and everything to lose by breaking its commitments and sparking a return to the status quo ante of international isolation.

However, such a short break-out time only bolsters the likelihood of American military action. It took seven years of nuclear-related sanctions to coax Iran to the negotiating table, at which Iran has yet to make any irreversible commitments. No matter the president or Congress’ desire for alacrity, it would be impossible for even the most stringent sanctions to have their desired effect in less than twelve months. At that point, the only way the United States can prevent an Iranian break-out will be to credibly threaten the use of force. Perhaps unwittingly, the deal the Administration believes averts war only works if the U.S. is willing to go to war to enforce it.

To avoid war, the United States and Israel have two options: accept Iran as a nuclear power or negotiate a deal that eliminates Iran’s capacity to be one. Such a deal must verifiably dismantle Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure and remove its capacity to enrich uranium at any level. By doing so, it can extend the break-out time to a matter of years, ensuring that it will indeed have enough time to prevent an Iranian bomb through non-military means.

The impending deal is not final. For cultural and political reasons, Iran may never agree to any deal, even one as advantageous as this one. Yet, unless the United States dramatically reverses the concessions it has made, this deal will not defer the threat of war, but accelerate it.

Read next: Is This the Man Who Could Beat Netanyahu and Become Israel’s Next PM?

Photos: What Obama's Hugs Meant

President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel embrace during a press conference to announce Hagel's departure at the White House on Nov. 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.
You can see it by Obama’s bowed head and Hagel’s sorrowful face – this is an “I’m sorry” hug, plain and simple.Mandel Ngan—AFP/Getty Images
President Barack Obama gives White House press secretary Jay Carney a hug after announcing that Carney will step down later next month, during a surprise visit to the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House, Friday, May 30, 2014. The president announced Carney's departure in a surprise appearance at in the White House press briefing room Friday. He said principal deputy press secretary Josh Earnest will take over the job. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
This hug between Obama and former Press Secretary Jay Carney may have been commemorating Carney’s departure, but all people will remember is its awkwardness.Susan Walsh—AP
US-VOTE-2012-DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN
Here’s where Obama’s hug game is the strongest: with Michelle. The peaceful smile on his face, the warm, full-body embrace – this is clearly an “I love you” hug. Consider it the antidote to the Carney debacle. Jim Watson—AFP/Getty Images
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 24: U.S. President Barack Obama gives a hug to Dallas nurse Nina Pham in the Oval Office of the White House October 24, 2014 in Washington, DC. Pham, a nurse who was infected with Ebola from treating patient Thomas Eric Duncan at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas and was first diagnosed on October 12, was declared free of the virus on Friday. (Photo by Pool/Getty Images)
Obama’s hug with nurse Nina Pham after her battle with Ebola was a way to signal to the public that the disease is not as scary as some had thought. This is the hug as public health awareness.Olivier Douliery-—Getty Images
US-WEATHER-STORM-SANDY-OBAMA
Critics charged that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie "hugged" the president, but the Republican claimed it was just a handshake.Jewel Samad—AFP/Getty Images
FILE - In this Oct. 31, 2012, file photo, President Barack Obama, left, embraces Donna Vanzant, right, during a tour of a neighborhood effected by Superstorm Sandy in Brigantine, N.J. Vanzant is a owner of North Point Marina, which was damaged by the storm. In the end, President Obama won re-election exactly the way his campaign had predicted: running up big margins with women and minorities, mobilizing a sophisticated registration and get-out-the-vote operation and focusing narrowly on the battleground states that would determine the election. Still, there were detours along the way. Superstorm Sandy upended the campaign in its closing days, though the political impact appears to have been positive for Obama, giving him a high-profile opportunity to show voters presidential leadership(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The photo of Obama hugging a victim of Hurricane Sandy went viral- his solemn face and her tear-stained one, his arms protectively around her shoulders – this is a presidential hug in its purest form.Pablo Martinez Monsivais—AP
U.S. President Barack Obama kisses Aung San Suu Kyi following joint remarks at her residence in Yangon, November 19, 2012. President Obama became the first serving U.S. president to visit Myanmar on Monday, trying during a whirlwind six-hour trip to strike a balance between praising the government's progress in shaking off military rule and pressing for more reform. REUTERS/Jason Reed (MYANMAR - Tags: POLITICS) - RTR3ALMW
Though Obama’s peck on Burmese democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi’s cheek was a pro-democracy smooch, her visible recoil from the kiss indicates that he may have been better off with a handshake.Jason Reed—Reuters
President Barack Obama, right, is picked-up and lifted off the ground by Scott Van Duzer, left, owner of Big Apple Pizza and Pasta Italian Restaurant during an unannounced stop, Sunday, Sept. 9, 2012, in Ft. Pierce, Fla. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Obama was literally swept off his feet by pizzeria owner Scott Van Duzer. The now-famous bear hug was a “celebrities are just like us” moment, when Obama showed he could still joke around in a regular ol’ pizza joint. Sept. 9, 2012.Pablo Martinez Monsivais—AP

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.