×

No pact means war? But it could lead to war

White House political aides are doing an excellent job of fear-mongering to convince members of Congress to support the proposed nuclear arms deal with Iran. Their argument: The only other option is war.

But war is not the only other option. If anything, giving Iran what it is seeking through the agreement concluded a few weeks ago could hasten conflict.

Lawmakers should be examining the proposal carefully. Critics say it would do very little to hamper Tehran’s development of nuclear weapons. Even Obama’s supporters concede the deal has limited usefulness, especially after a 10-year period has passed.

Iranian leaders had two goals in negotiating the pact. First, it would give them cover in which to continue working on nuclear weapons while under ineffective international supervision designed to prevent that. It also would give other world leaders what they hope is a plausible excuse for not taking additional action against Tehran.

Second, Iranian officials are eager to have economic sanctions against their country lifted. That would curb internal dissent, while providing more money for military adventurism. If sanctions are ended, Tehran would have quick access to about $100 billion in assets frozen by other governments.

Americans are right to be leery of a U.S.-led war against Iran. No war should be entered into lightly. But rejecting the deal need not lead to it – and ratifying it most assuredly will not prevent it, at least in the long run.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

Starting at $4.65/week.

Subscribe Today