I remember my frustration back in 2008. Republican presidential nominee John McCain condemned his opponent, then-Senator Barack Obama, for suggesting diplomacy was a feasible way to halt Iran's nuclear program.
During this year's tranche of diplomacy there was much head scratching amongst western thinkers about the potential for the Ayatollah Ali Khamanei or hardliners in the Revolutionary Guard to derail the deal. Embarrassingly the only party that threatens to kill the current agreement is the United States Congress.
Congressional Republicans' instragence poses a question just as relevant now and as in 2008. What end do Iran hawks think they will gain by killing the current deal? The present agreement does not prevent the United States from taking military action if it becomes necessary. Likewise Iran's agreement not to build a nuclear weapon, however ingenuine is at least as good as doing nothing while the Islamic Republic continues atomic work. Obviously the deal ends sanctions against Iran but these sanctions serve no purpose besides compelling Iran to accept such an agreement in the first place. Some opponents mutter about a better deal. Whatever their opinion of the President and Secretary of State John Kerry hey cannot seriously believe that the administration agreed to a worse deal than they thought they could get.
If Iran shows good faith then the current agreement will end the issue of nuclear proliferation in the Middle east for a generation. If Iran continues development then the president will be presented with the same choice as he would if congress rejects the bargain: bomb or acquiesce. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
