So what if Iran isn't planning to build an actual nuclear weapon? Would that affect your take on the nuclear deal? I mean it. These aren't rhetorical questions.
Now, it's not as if the Iranians hadn't been trying to build a bomb. They were. At least through about 2003. The National Intelligence Estimate of that year said that they were "determined" to get a nuclear weapon and we saw plenty of activity around mastering the nuclear fuel cycle, developing ballistic missiles and constructing a nuclear warhead.
But the NIE four years later said (with high confidence) that one of those activities—building the warhead—had been suspended. And that judgment was based on evidence that work had stopped, not on any absence of evidence that it was continuing.
All along many of us had judged that the Iranians would not be well served by building one of these things and cooking it off somewhere in the desert. That was the North Korean scenario and the Kims in power there needed to actually demonstrate nuclear capability to play out their usual diplomatic cycle: create a dangerous provocation; negotiate to accept concessions; repeat (again and again).
For the Iranians, though, an actual weapon and a test would push a whole bunch of geopolitical needles into the red zone. What would the Americans do? The Israelis? The Turks? The Europeans? The Saudis? The UN? Better to park within striking distance of a weapon and let the resulting ambiguity get you 90% of the upside of weaponization with only 10% of the downside.
For years (including while in government) I have illustrated Iranian nuclear objectives by holding my right hand in the air and describing it as a usable nuclear device. I then slowly move my left hand in the direction of my right, stopping with a near imperceptible distance between the two. The movement of the left hand and parking it so close to the right, I conclude, is the driving ambition of the Iranian nuclear program.
Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric about incinerating Israel, what the Iranians really want is a deterrent. They've gone to school on Libya (Although they really didn't have to. This is what they do to you if they don't like you AND you give up your program.).
Picture this admittedly oversimplified scenario. The United States or the West or the Sunni neighbors threaten robust action against Iran for some recent transgression. The Iranians quietly remind their antagonist: You should really tread lightly here. We've got a bunch of kit in the garage over here. Could be really bad. I'm just sayin'.
Iranian behavior throughout the region (Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Hezb'allah, Hamas, etc.) has been troubling enough without their having a hole card. What might it look like with one?
So where does the Iranian nuclear agreement get us in light of this scenario? Well, first of all, ballistic missile development continues apace and sanctions on that program are lifted in eight years, if not sooner. The IAEA is charged with pinning down by mid-December how far the Iranians have gotten building a warhead, but the Iranians have already made it clear that the inspectors won't get access to the documents, the facilities or the scientists they need to. And it doesn't matter all that much since the deal doesn't tie sanctions relief to the Iranians coming clean on this.
And then there's the question of fissile material. The United States committed in the deal to assist the Iranian enrichment program and to protect it against any third party sabotage. The Iranians will also be allowed to deploy far more capable centrifuges than their current IR-1s in year eight of the agreement. Limits on the number of centrifuges expire at year ten. Limits on the quality and volume of stockpiled enriched uranium expire in year fifteen.
Years ago, General Eisenhower was assessing the situation upon taking command at the new NATO headquarters and asked his staff what the Red Army would need to be able to march to the English Channel.
"Shoes", was the pointed reply.
A similar question today might be, "What do the Iranians need to achieve their nuclear ambitions?"
"Patience", would be the equally appropriate (and alarming) response.
So, to answer my questions from the opening, far from frustrating Iran's nuclear plans, the nuclear deal seems to provide them with a work program to achieve them.
Congress should keep that in mind as it prepares to vote next month.
