The U.S., along with Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany, reached a historic agreement with Iran on July 14, curbing the country’s ability to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for removing sanctions. While President Barack Obama praised the deal, two high-ranking U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ), announced their opposition to the deal.

The Daily Orange spoke to Miriam Elman, a political science professor at SU, and Bill Smullen, director of the national security studies program, about the deal.

The Daily Orange: Do you approve of the Iran deal?

Miriam Elman: The deal is terrific for Iran. It legitimizes Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions in exchange for temporary and barely verifiable restrictions on its nuclear program. The deal is a non-disarmament, limited-arms control accord and shouldn’t be sold as more than it is. It legally gives Iran, which has a past record of cheating and concealing its nuclear activities, the ability to shorten the time to nuclear breakout within the next 15 years, virtually guaranteeing an Iranian bomb. Another fatal flaw is the immediate sanctions relief — billions of dollars will pour into Iran without it being required to change its policies of terror or aggression.

Bill Smullen: I am in favor of it for this reason: For 36 years, we have been at odds with a very important country in a very important part of the world. It is time for that to end. I think the nuclear deal, as you called it, is a better alternative than what we might face, which is war.

The D.O.: Sen. Schumer and Sen. Menendez oppose the deal. Are you surprised by these two influential Democratic senators going against the administration and not supporting the deal?

M.E.: I’m not surprised. They’ve been critical before the unveiling (of the deal) and both of them have considerable foreign policy expertise. I think that Democrats need to consider the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on its merits. Loyalty to the party shouldn’t be the deciding factor.

B.S.: I was surprised that Schumer did because he is probably going to be the (Senate minority leader), and his position is obviously going to be important. On the other hand, Harry Reid came in favor of the deal and several Democratic colleagues quickly voiced their intention to vote in favor of the deal.

The D.O.: Do you believe the two senators’ opposition to the deal would ultimately lead fellow Democrats to vote against the deal?

M.E.: Every single (vote) counts because the majority of Americans don’t support the deal and it’s important that the American people have a voice. Even if the president doesn’t have to exercise a veto, bipartisan congressional opposition now will be helpful for later efforts to shore up the deal and limit its negative impact.

The D.O.: Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy specialist at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in “The American Interest” that in terms of power relations, the U.S. is stronger than Iran, but has given major concessions because it is “not willing to use the ultimate form of power and the Iranian leaders know this.” Do you believe the U.S. could have pushed Iran further and gotten a better deal?

M.E.: Yes, because at the end of the day the Iranians needed the deal more than we did. They are desperate to have the sanctions removed. Why? Because the public is fed up with Iran’s lagging economy and above all the regime needs to survive. Sanctions are what brought (Iranian President) Rouhani with the Ayatollah’s (Iran’s Supreme Leader) blessing to the table. U.S. negotiators ended up caving on every one of their initial red lines. As a result, the deal falls short of the administration’s stated goals. It will leave Iran as a nuclear threshold state, raise the prospect for war, spur a conventional and nuclear arms race and threaten our regional allies.

B.S.: No, I do not think that we could have gained any more. And here is what Americans do not understand about the art of compromise: compromise means you find some middle ground where neither side gets everything they want. But the ultimate solution is better for both sides than if they did not have some kind of compromised agreement.

Published on August 31, 2015 at 10:04 pm

Contact Satoshi: ssugiyam@syr.edu | @SatoshiJournal