West of Eden: Trolling from the Times

Image via All Hat No Cattle.

The good news is that the more educated Iran trolls, such as the New York Times's David Sanger and Michael Gordon (remember him?), have finally pretty much acknowledged that the JCPOA deal will prevent Iran from building a nuclear device over the next 15 years; they don't quite come out and say it, but they've pretty much stopped suggesting it won't. The bad news is that they're doubling down on the "problem" of what might happen in 2031:

the flip side is that after 15 years, Iran would be allowed to produce reactor-grade fuel on an industrial scale using far more advanced centrifuges. That may mean that the warning time if Iran decided to race for a bomb would shrink to weeks, according to a recent Brookings Institution analysis by Robert J. Einhorn, a former member of the American negotiating team.

Critics say that by that time, Iran’s economy would be stronger, as would its ability to withstand economic sanctions, and its nuclear installations probably would be better protected by air defense systems, which Iran is expected to buy from Russia.

Critics are wrong:

• Once again, weapons agreements (such as the START treaty) generally have terminal dates. This does not mean having agreements is worse than not having them. It means they usually have to be renegotiated at some future date (if Iran is more prosperous and better defended at that point, it could just as easily make a deal easier as more difficult, as with Cuba this year, unless you're one of the rare lunatics who rejects the Cuba deal as well—o hai, Senator Menendez, you have a trial date yet?). Saying you want a deal that lasts forever is just a roundabout way of saying you don't want a deal.
• The Additional Protocol between Iran and International Atomic Energy Agency does not have a terminal date; IAEA inspections are to continue in perpetuity as long as Iran remains (unlike India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel) a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and believe me, they can't throw out the inspectors in secret. There is no way such a deal could be abrogated without ample warning. (Which we had, when North Korea left the NPT, but unfortunately Bush was president at the time and preoccupied with the imaginary nuclear weapons program in Iraq, so it didn't help. I truly believe no US administration will ever be that feckless again, or if it is I'm more worried that it would bomb Iran unnecessarily, as the JCPOA would help prevent, than allow Iran to build a bomb.)
• We can't say what Iran is going to be like fifteen years from now. The next Supreme Leader could be a grim isolationist who wants nothing to do with any other country, or a fun-loving Shi'ite equivalent of Pope Francis, or a Machiavellian intriguer and an atheist determined to build a bomb. Secular forces could achieve real power (through the success of the JCPOA!) or the Revolutionary Guards could be in total control. But we can say for sure that it won't be the same as it is today, let alone what it was the last time the country actually may have had a working nuclear weapons program, in 2002. If the US wishes to have an influence at that point it needs to not back out of this agreement forged by the international community (had Congress not refused to join the League of Nations, things might have been different in 1938).

Do I detect a hint, by the way, that what's going on here is not so much rejecting the deal at all as it is bargaining on behalf of a certain Middle Eastern country that does have nuclear weapons?

both [deal supporter Rep. Adam Schiff and undecided former negotiator Dennis Ross] said the United States should also be prepared to provide bunker-busting bombs to Israel to deter Iran from trying to shield illicit nuclear work underground. Others have called for a long-term congressional “authorization to use military force” if Iran violated the accord.

Though the Israel arsenal question seems to have been answered months ago, as International Business Times (among others) reported May 21,

In a bid to alleviate Israel's fears over an impending nuclear deal with Iran, the US has approved the sale of advanced bombs - including bunker busters - and missiles worth $1.9bn (£1.23bn).

The package includes 3,000 Hellfire missiles for the Israel Air Force's Apache helicopters, as well as hundreds of GPS and laser-guided bombs and missiles. The transferral of Hellfires was suspended in the summer of 2014 over concerns that Israel was using them against civilian targets during its attacks on Gaza.

If the deal is approved by Congress, Israel will also receive other tactical weapons, including 50 BLU-113 Super Penetrator and 700 BLU-109 Penetrator bunker buster missiles.

(The BLU-113s are the 4,700-pound "Deep Throat" version of which Israel may already have quite a number, or maybe not—I couldn't get anywhere near the bottom of the question in 2012, and I'm not going to try again right now.)

Are they saying they have to have more than the $2 billion worth? Are they still angling for that 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator, the "Big BLU"? Sorry, they can't have it.

And by the way, Congress, if you really want to give an advance AUMF now to whoever turns out to be president in 2031 without a clue as to who that will be, I'm totally breaking up with you.