Opposition to the Iran deal relies on bad arguments

Scrapping the Iran nuclear deal would not make this region safer, argues HA Hellyer

US secretary of state John Kerry leaves after speaking about the Iran deal in New York City. Andrew Burton / Getty Images / AFP

I have a reflexive bias against the Iran deal, for reasons that have little to do with Iranians and everything to do with Tehran's policies in the region. Despite this, I back the imperfect P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran, because the wider context of Middle Eastern politics make all other realistic options far worse.

To be opposed to the Iran deal is not intrinsically bereft of worth. There are very good reasons to be incredibly suspicious of Tehran – not because of the nonsensical sectarianism that is currently being peddled across large parts of the Arab world, nor because of some insidious bigotry against Iranians or Muslims within the West. Rather, there are ethical objections to how Tehran has chosen to engage in the region, the most prominent example being its decision to back the butcher of Damascus, Bashar Al Assad.

But Tehran’s conduct in this region is precisely why the deal should be seized upon to push forward a change in Iranian policies.

Would the deal have been better if changes in certain regional policies had been demanded as a prerequisite? Yes, but Tehran was not prepared to sign such a deal.

Regardless of that, if any party has objections, then the solution is not to push for a disavowal of the deal, but to seize on it as a way to move Tehran in another direction. Admittedly, it won’t be easy to make that happen. It is entirely possible that Tehran will use the freer international environment to spread its influence and cause more trouble. Indeed, it has to be expected that certain parties in Tehran will try to do that anyway.

But more access to the international community can work both ways, if those in the region and beyond are focused on making it so. If the international community is prepared to put even a portion of the energy it used to obtain this deal into ensuring that its implementation and follow-up are constructive and focused, then Tehran will be left with far fewer options. Tehran won’t be able to have its cake and eat it too – unless the world lets it.

Some will argue that with all these risks, the deal should simply be scrapped. One major fault with that argument is the assumption that scrapping the deal would lead to a safer situation – and that simply isn’t the case. It’s why, for example, the head of the group that was meant to lead lobbying efforts against the Iran deal has quit his job. After looking into it at length, United Against Nuclear Iran president Gary Samore realised that the deal delivered the safest way forward. He came to that conclusion even while harbouring deep suspicions about Tehran and its intentions.

For many of its more sophisticated supporters, the deal is a good one not because they don’t suspect Tehran, but because they do.

Those Americans wanting to scrap the deal also claim that it is opposed in the Arab world and particularly so in the Gulf, where many countries are US allies. There is one problem with that argument – and that is that much of the Arab world, especially the GCC, has come out in support of the deal.

Many countries are deeply distrustful of Tehran – and with good reason, owing to Iranian policies in their own backyard. But they also recognise that one way or another, there had to be a deal, and it is time for them to prepare for the next phase. Many opponents of the deal in the West ought to think carefully about coming to the same conclusion.

When the deal was announced, there was an excitement among its many supporters that belied reality. Iran is unlikely to become a positive force in the international community anytime soon. But that is not the point. The point is whether the deal is likely to lead to a better situation regionally and internationally over the medium and long term. Not having a deal makes that consequence implausible. Having the deal doesn’t guarantee it, but it leaves that possibility far more open – if the international community works hard at it.

Opponents of the agreement should consider whether their energy would be far better spent ensuring it is implemented properly and well. Otherwise, they will just be left behind as the world moves on.

Dr HA Hellyer is an associate fellow in international security studies at the Royal United Services Institute in London, and the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC

On Twitter: @hahellyer