With all the negative press about the negotiations with Iran, the amateurish PR from Obama, the accusations from Netanyahu, the rumors during the negotiations, the leaks, the aggressive statements and threats from the Iranians, the actual agreement framework is not bad!
The framework is obvious designed to allow Iran keep their nuclear reactors for electricity, but disables them to produce uranium for nuclear weapons for 15 years. After that, the agreement expires without extension or limitation.
The reward for Iran is the gradual release of the sanctions on Iran.
There are two factors, which defines the success of the deal with Iran:
1. The actual agreement with all the technical details in June 2015
2. The actual implementation
If those two factors are positively implemented, then such agreement is a success. If not, then it’s a failure.
Were the negotiations needed?
The negotiations with Iran started with the demands of dismantling all of the nuclear installations, but ended quite different.
The subject of negotiations was raised and proposed by Iran after suffering under crippling sanctions. President Obama didn’t choose to continue pushing Iran to dismantle Iran nuclear installations, which was the easiest and cheapest, but agreed with having the negotiations. Strategically was that a mistake!? Why give up an advantage?
Simplistically speaking, President Obama saw that Iran only wanted atomic energy and no bombs. From the goodness of his heart, he hammered together with Iran this agreement together. Right!?
Or maybe he wanted boots on the ground, and the Iranians were the willing participants. All of it to stop and destroy ISIS.
Alternative to the agreement
No agreement. Apply crippling sanctions until nuclear installations are destroyed. No negotiations, no talking, no discussions, nothing.
If needed, bomb the nuclear installations.
It’s the position of strength, and it works fine.