War Actually Is an Alternative to Iran Deal

The Obama administration, along with other nations, negotiated an agreement with Iran on halting its nuclear research program for a limited time and allowing inspections. Opponents urge rejection, suggesting a better agreement can be reached, with Iran capitulating to broader US demands. The opponents scoff at US President Barack Obama’s conclusion that the alternative is more war in the Middle East. Rejecting the deal may not prompt immediate fighting, concludes Philip Gordon, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, but Europe and other partners imposing sanctions would withdraw from the effort.“That means that in the long run, we will indeed face a choice between accepting an Iranian nuclear weapons capability and the use of force,” he writes for Politico. The “agreement has been endorsed by the P5+1, the entire United Nations Security Council and practically every country in the world.” It would be reckless for the United States to lead and then reject the international agreement. If US Congress rejects the deal, the nation can’t count on cooperation for more sanctions or military strikes to bring Iran in line. – YaleGlobal

War Actually Is an Alternative to Iran Deal

Most nations support the deal on Iran’s nuclear program; for US Congress to reject the deal is reckless, forcing the US hand on a military strike
Philip Gordon
Friday, August 14, 2015

Philip Gordon is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2013 to 2015 he was White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf region.

© 2015 POLITICO LLC

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.