Obama to Opponents of Nuclear Agreement: Do You Think War is Better?

Barack Obama, the President of the United States, described the agreement reached in Lausanne as 'historic' and asked its critics, 'Do you really think that this verifiable agreement, if fully implemented and supported by the world's powers, is worse than the risk of starting another war in the Middle East?' Shortly after the world powers and Iran reached an understanding after eight days of continuous talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, regarding the framework of a comprehensive agreement, the U.S. President participated in a televised speech. Mr. Obama addressed the people of Iran from the White House garden, stating, 'We want to engage with you based on our common interests, and this agreement offers a vision for lifting sanctions.' He emphasized that if the Lausanne understanding ultimately leads to a final and comprehensive agreement, the U.S., its allies, and the world will be 'safer.' The initial agreement reached in Lausanne is a beginning for drafting a comprehensive agreement that, according to the announced timeline, should be finalized by the end of June (within the next three months). However, the nuclear negotiations faced criticism from opponents who continued to criticize it even after the Lausanne understanding. Among the most prominent critics is Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Mark Regev, the spokesperson for the Israeli Prime Minister, tweeted that Netanyahu, in a phone call with Obama, described the political understanding between Iran and the 5+1 as a threat to Israel's existence and stated that this political understanding does not block Iran's path to acquiring a bomb but rather paves the way for it. Mr. Obama himself emphasized in his speech that the U.S. will not hesitate to ensure Israel's security. He also stated that a potential final agreement would place Iran's nuclear program 'under more scrutiny than any other country in the world.' The Republicans, who hold the majority in the U.S. Congress, are also among the critics of the agreement. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, described the agreement reached as a 'diversion' from the original goals of the negotiations. The unprecedented broadcast of Obama's speech by the news network in Iran has sparked reactions on social media. According to Reuters, Barack Obama stated that there are three options ahead: first, a 'strong, verifiable agreement like this.' Second, 'we could bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the Middle East and delaying Tehran's nuclear program by a few years.' Third, withdrawing from negotiations and finding countries to join in sanctioning Iran and 'hoping for the best' outcomes. He added that the agreement is 'the best option we have had so far.' The U.S. President also referred to the 'difficult past' between Iran and the United States, noting that this agreement alone cannot end the deep-seated differences between the two countries. He emphasized that Washington's concerns about Iran remain; as a government that continues to support terrorism, has hands in Middle Eastern instability, and threatens U.S. allies and friends, such as Israel. Iranian officials have denied interference in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, although they do not hide their support for groups like the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. At the same time, various Iranian officials have emphasized the destruction of Israel over the years. The U.S. President stated that if Iran engages in covert actions in its nuclear program, the agreement reached will reveal it much more easily than in the past, and the U.S. President will still have 'all options currently available to confront it.'