As March dwindled down toward an unmet deadline, I found myself growing nostalgic for the early days of the Iran nuclear negotiations. The going was tough, of course, but an interim deal was produced--and a wonderful deal it was. Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium. It agreed to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It stopped construction on its heavy-water nuclear reactor. It acknowledged, tacitly, that the lion's share of economic sanctions would remain in place until a final agreement was done. That was 16 months ago, and much to the surprise of skeptics, Iran has abided by the deal. And almost as surprising, the global coalition--including the Russians and Chinese--has held together and stuck to its guns, much to the credit of the oft-maligned Obama negotiating team. "It is ironic," an Arab diplomat told me. "The interim deal is better than the deal you're negotiating."
Well, of course it is. There is no way Iran would permanently agree to stop its program in return for limited sanctions relief. It has the right, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to process low-grade uranium for peaceful purposes. And so we have had this messy haggle over how many centrifuges Iran will be allowed to operate going forward, where they will spin and how quickly we will lift the sanctions.
There have been nonnuclear issues on both sides. The proud Iranians have to concede without seeming to concede. The Americans and the rest of the world, but mostly the Americans, have to acknowledge that after 36 years, the Iranian theocrats--caricatured by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and assorted Republicans as half-crazed religious fanatics--can act responsibly.
The atmosphere surrounding the negotiations has also been complicated by a significant upheaval in the region during the past 16 months. The unnatural straight-line national borders drawn 99 years ago by the British and French are disappearing in the sand. The true regional fault line, between Sunni and Shi'ite, is emerging. A full-blown sectarian war looms. The U.S. would be crazy to take sides in this struggle, but events--the rise of ISIS, a barbaric Sunni army--have conspired to nudge us toward the Shi'ite side of the equation. A nuclear deal with Iran suddenly has import it didn't have before. "It would give Iran international credibility," says Nicholas Burns, a former U.S. diplomat who has negotiated with Iran in the past, "to go along with the increased influence it has in Iraq and Yemen." Burns believes we should make the deal if we can, "but the Administration has to focus on rebuilding our relations with the Sunni powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia." (On March 31, Obama lifted the arms embargo against Egypt, which is fighting ISIS-related forces in Sinai and Libya.)
On April Fools' Day, no less an international expert than Howard Dean opined that the Obama Administration should walk away from the talks and let the sanctions continue to bite Iran until it begs for mercy. A week earlier, the incredible--that is, not credible--former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton modestly proposed that we should just bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities and be done with it. The frustration with the negotiating process was understandable. By persisting at the table, the U.S. seemed more slouchy than strong--especially as the Iranians appeared to walk back parts of the agreement and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei acknowledged a chant of "Death to America" from a handpicked crowd with a simple "Indeed."
It would be nice to think that melodrama--walking away from the table, bombing Iran--would have some sort of conclusive effect. But Dean's plan assumed that the international sanctions would remain in effect if we walked away--a very unlikely proposition, as the Russian and Chinese foreign ministers made it clear that they were satisfied with the outline of the deal the Americans and Iranians were still squabbling over.
Bolton's bomb throwing assumed that Iran would react as Iraq and Syria did when Israel bombed their nuclear reactors--that is, not at all. But Iran is completely different from the almost-states of Syria and Iraq. It is a real place. It has natural borders on all but one side. It has a 4,000-year history and a distinct culture. It is Persian, not Arab. It has a sophisticated, well-educated populace, which may not like the authoritarian government but is proud and patriotic and very sensitive to disdain from Western imperial powers. Indeed, if we were to bomb its nuclear facilities, the Iranians would quickly rebuild them and rush toward the creation of a nuclear deterrent.
One way or another, that is a reality we have to deal with, even if it involves ongoing negotiation--a prospect that shouldn't be so painful as long as the lovely interim agreement remains intact.
TO READ JOE'S BLOG POSTS, GO TO time.com/swampland