Comprehensive Campaign of Opponents and Supporters of the Agreement with Iran

The nuclear agreement between Iran and the 1+5 group remains one of the most important topics in global media. Opponents and supporters of this agreement analyze various aspects and consequences of it. The Washington Post, in an article by Dan Balz, examines the positions of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry regarding how to deal with Iran. The author compares the post-agreement situation with the debates between Obama and Clinton in 2007 for the presidential election; in that debate, Obama stated he was willing to talk to his Iranian counterpart without preconditions. Following that, Hillary Clinton remarked that Obama was being 'naive' and that she was not willing to meet Iranian officials at that level. The Washington Post writer adds that Obama did not back down during the peak of attacks he faced over this position, continuing a policy of pressure and engagement with Iran to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons despite opposition and criticism. The newspaper notes that during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, economic sanctions were imposed on Iran, but she also supported negotiations with the Iranians and resorted to secret diplomacy, which ultimately led to direct talks between the two countries. However, the motivation of John Kerry, the Secretary of State, to reach an agreement with Iran, according to the author, stems from his long-standing determination to change the course of events in the Middle East; one of Kerry's greatest disappointments after losing to George Bush in 2004 was missing the chance to establish peace between Palestinians and Israelis. Upon becoming Secretary of State, Kerry focused on the peace process but not only did he not achieve anything, but relations with Tel Aviv also reached their lowest point in the history of the two countries' relations. The American newspaper writer believes that Kerry's legacy as Secretary of State may be partly tied to the final agreement with Iran. The writer adds that Clinton has no choice but to remain in the camp of Kerry and Obama regarding the agreement with Iran until this diplomatic gamble yields results; however, Clinton's election campaign will depend entirely on future events and her reactions. Michael Crowley, in Politico, writes that some in the White House doubt that the nuclear agreement with Iran will change Tehran's behavior towards Washington. According to Politico, some observers of Iranian affairs believe that the Iranian leader may try to keep hardliners satisfied and further display his opposition to the U.S. through other means. The author of this article emphasizes that countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel are concerned that Obama is considering a strategic shift, transforming Iran from an enemy of the U.S. into a regional partner. Crowley goes on to mention two competing viewpoints: one suggests that lifting sanctions would enable Iran to support 'terrorism' and proxy wars, while the other speculates that the nuclear agreement could strengthen moderate forces in Iran. Politico reports that there is disagreement among senior White House officials about what to expect after the final agreement. Fareed Zakaria, in the Washington Post, describes the nuclear agreement with Iran as the best available option and challenges war and sanction advocates. He believes there are two real options: one is to assume Congress will reject the agreement and sanctions will be reinstated. Zakaria states that it is common for the sanctions regime to fade over time; if other countries see that Iran made an acceptable proposal but the U.S. refuses to accept it, they are unlikely to support strict sanctions against Iran. This writer describes the Iranian people as a proud and nationalistic country that has not bowed to challenges, citing the Iran-Iraq war as an example. As Zakaria predicts, if the U.S. does not accept the agreement and sanctions continue, it is unlikely that Iran will abandon its nuclear program, leading to the second option, which is military action. Since nuclear facilities are scattered deep within Iran, Zakaria believes hundreds of flights would be needed to destroy air defenses and nuclear facilities, some of which are in residential areas; however, what the outcome would be is that the people would support the government, and Iran would retaliate in various ways through its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Additionally, the global coalition against Iran would fall apart, with Russia, China, and many other countries condemning the attack; on the other hand, after this attack, Zakaria believes Iran would likely immediately and swiftly initiate not just a nuclear program but the construction of a nuclear bomb for deterrent power. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in an analysis by Peter Beinart, considers this agreement as a foundation for ending the Cold War between the U.S. and Iran. The reduction of U.S. dependence on Saudi Arabia is among the advantages of this agreement; a country from which, according to the author, 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were citizens. Many Americans have realized the potential risks posed by Saudi Arabia. According to this analyst, one of the unspoken goals of the attack on Iraq was to have a large, stable oil ally against the uncertain future of the 'House of Saud.' Haaretz adds that what George Bush could not achieve through military action, Barack Obama may achieve diplomatically. This analyst believes that much of the Saudi concern over the nuclear agreement stems from the fact that Riyadh knows that as relations between Iran and the U.S. improve, their influence over Washington diminishes. The newspaper adds that in the long run, Iran may prove to be a more reliable ally than Saudi Arabia; because Iranians are more educated and more pro-American than their neighbors and have a history of democracy. Trevor Tim, a columnist for The Guardian, writes that many are pleased with the Iran-1+5 agreement as it could prevent another U.S. war in the Middle East; however, he notes that prominent conservative figures in Congress, neocons, and Republican candidates immediately condemned this agreement; for example, Senator Mark Kirk stated that even Chamberlain got a better deal with Hitler. He points out that it is difficult to take Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's words seriously since he has been saying for over 20 years that Iran is close to building a bomb, and even his own intelligence agencies do not agree with him. The Guardian columnist adds that often in discussions related to Iran, it is overlooked that 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that Iran had abandoned its military nuclear program in 2003; similar reports leaked from intelligence agencies in 2010 and 2012 indicated that these agencies did not believe Iran was actively seeking to build a nuclear bomb. The Guardian writer states that despite this, individuals like Senator Robert Menendez continually refer to Iran's 'military and secret nuclear program' or former U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, campaigns against the agreement on Twitter because, as he writes, his position has always been to bomb Iran. The Wall Street Journal, in an article by Carol Lee, discusses the confrontation between Republicans and Barack Obama. The writer emphasizes that Republican opposition to the agreement and final nuclear deal with Iran is part of a broader confrontation plan against Barack Obama. The Wall Street Journal columnist quotes Robert Einhorn, a former Obama administration official who was previously involved in negotiations with Iran, stating that the agreement with Iran is not only related to Obama's foreign policy but also tied to his presidency in this larger battle with Republicans. The writer recalls that Bob Corker, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reiterated on Sunday that Congress should have a larger role in reviewing the final agreement with Iran. Meanwhile, Republican Senate leaders plan to vote on Corker's proposal on April 14; a proposal that would prevent the Obama administration from lifting sanctions for 60 days, giving Congress the opportunity to review the final agreement with Iran and possibly vote on it; the White House has threatened to veto this proposal. Corker stated on Sunday that supporters of his proposal are nearing the number 67, which he claims could make the proposal veto-proof.