Home | About | Donate

Correcting the Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal


Correcting the Critics of the Iran Nuclear Deal

Mitchell Plitnick

From the standpoint of U.S. security, the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program announced on July 14 is a very good one. Iran consented to a significant rollback of its nuclear capacity and to a level of monitoring far exceeding any other country. The main goal of the U.S. and its partners has been met: Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon has been blocked.


This article gives a clear exposition of what exactly is involved in the Iran nuclear deal, but the line of argument is fatally flawed. Mr. Plitnick tries to meet all the complaints of the critics, but his assumptions about what makes a “good deal” are more or less the same as the critics’. The critics want an emasculated, supine Iran, which has virtually no sovereignty over its own affairs (both economic and military). The critics want a deal in which Iran cries “uncle,” and is always ready to do the bidding of the American government. The deal must also uphold a mysterious fiction called “Israeli security.” The critics want an enslaved Iran. And Mr Plitnick tells us that the deal was “good” because an enslaved Iran was more or less what the American “negotiators” got. He does not seem to realize that the critics of the deal are being purely disingenuous and opportunistic. They cannot be upset with the deal because it does exactly what Kerry and Obama claim: it puts Iran squarely in the cross hairs of the Empire’s guns. We may not see war tomorrow, but somewhere down the line war is inevitable: a “deal” with so many punitive provisions is bound to lead to conflict. The Iranians are bound to feel deep resentment once they realize how thoroughly they have been enslaved. Iran is a nation of 70 million people. It cannot be held down by a bunch of lunatics and thugs in Washington DC. There will be war…

The Israelis are playing up the “Iranian threat” for their own cynical reasons. Israel is one of the leading threats to world peace, so we have to talk about the mad mullahs rather than the mad Zionists in Tel Aviv. The Saudis are as bad as the Israelis. Saudi Arabia is a major sponsor of terrorism, so again we have to focus on Iran!

But the greatest hypocritical power is the United States. Iran has not attacked any country in recent historical times, but the same cannot be said for the warmongers in Washington. Iran must not have nuclear weapons because this would make it invulnerable to American and Israeli threats and we can’t have that. I wish someone had found a way to block the development of nuclear weapons in the USA, still the only country to have used these evil arms. The whole non-nuclear world should sanction the USA, until it agrees to inspections and weapons controls. And there should be real international agreements to encourage reduction and eventually abolition of nuclear weapons. Of course, none of this likely, but it still remains the right thing to do. If humanity has a future it won’t be because the USA and other countries have nuclear weapons.

The deal with Iran is absurd and sets a dangerous precedent. The destruction of Iranian sovereignty will pave the way to yet another imperialist war, as it is only a matter of time before the Iranians “violate the terms of the agreement,” to use the Empire’s doublespeak. The USA and Israel (both nuclear powers) are denouncing Iran (not a nuclear power) as a mortal threat to the world. Am I missing something here, or isn’t this a classic instance of the pot calling the kettle black?

Mr. Plitnick seems to have no awareness that it might be possible to see the world from some other angle than the standpoint of the American Empire.


This is a bad deal because the U.S. and Israel will not dismantle a single nuclear weapon in exchange for Iran’s committment to never produce a nuclear weapon.
This deal is bad because despite the atrocious human rights record and continued support for State terrorism by the U.S., neither issue was even mentioned.
This deal is bad because the U.S. has still not apologized for or promised in the future not to undermine democracy at all costs in Iran.
This is a bad deal because the American public had no input in the negotiations and instead it was only corporate interests that shaped the deal.
This is a bad deal because there were no guarantees that the U.S. would cease meddling in the internal affairs of Iran.