"Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate."
The preliminary agreement between Iran and the major world powers announced Thursday by President Barack Obama is a important beginning and deserves this country's support.
Not only is the strong and high-minded negotiation worthy of our leaders' exhaustive effort, but the better-than-expected framework of the agreement -- if finalized -- would achieve what decades of already harsh sanctions have not: an Iran that will cease speeding toward nuclear armament and instead diminish its likelihood of becoming a nuclear threat.
The pact would roll back Iran's nuclear program sufficiently so that Iran could not quickly produce a nuclear weapon, and ensure that, if Iran cheated, the world would have at least one year to take preventive action, including reimposing sanctions.
Iran would shut down about two-thirds of the 19,000 centrifuges there that could produce bomb-
fuel strength uranium and agree not to enrich uranium over 3.67 percent (a much lower level than is required for a bomb) for at least 15 years. The core of the reactor at Arak, which officials have said could produce plutonium, another key weapon ingredient, would be dismantled and replaced. All spent fuel that could be used for weapons production would be shipped out of Iran. Further all of this is completely searchable and open to aggressive inspection by the U.S. and other agreeing nations.
In return, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations would lift sanctions crippling Iran's economy, though the timing is still uncertain.
Is it a guarantee of peace? Absolutely not. But it's the best of bad alternatives.
Speaking of alternatives there really only seem to be two. Continue the hard-line sanctions of the past decades that began with the 1979 Islamic Revolution. (So far that has done nothing except hurt Iran's ordinary people while the country's leaders expanded its nuclear building capacity from 200 centrifuges to 19,000.) Or make the first offensive and go to war.
Some of our nation's war hawks have talked of a strike on Iran -- like Israel's against an Iraqi reactor in 1981 and a Syrian facility in 2007. But those were single facilities. Iran has many, some near population centers and at least one underground so deep that one of Israel's main concerns is that bombs can't reach and destroy it. A strike would instead entail the United States going to war with Iran, destroying its air defenses, facilities, reactors and laboratories, and anything else in the way. Think of the recruitment heyday ISIS terrorists would have with that.
President Obama and the framers of this agreement want to "cut off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon," and create a trail instead toward Middle East peace.
Now the emphasis will be on finalizing the agreement and taking the partisan politics out of Congress's review.
Much of the weight for that partisan outcome lies right here in Tennessee.
Chattanoogan and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, co-authored with Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which would require any final agreement with Iran to be submitted to Congress for a 60-day review period before congressional-mandated sanctions on Iran could be waived or suspended by the president. Corker says the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on the legislation on April 14.
Thursday, after the preliminary pact was announced, Corker doubled down.
"A nuclear-armed Iran would lead to a less safe and less secure world, which is why the stakes are so high in the pursuit of a strong agreement that is fully enforceable, verifiable and is in our national security interests," he said. "It is important that we wait to see the specific details of today's announcement... [W]e must remain clear-eyed regarding Iran's continued resistance to concessions, long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism, and its current role in destabilizing the region."
Sen. Lamar Alexander, a co-sponsor, also made a shorter statement: "Congress should review any nuclear deal with Iran... . I will withhold judgment until there is a final deal and I can read the specific details."
Certainly Congress should join in the serious debate of foreign policy, but President Obama is right to be wary of congressional obstruction. Not so much of Tennessee lawmakers, perhaps, as they are generally level-headed. But certainly there are other, more contentious members of Congress who simply want to broad brush anything the president has touched as a no-no. In this high-stakes gamble, there is no room for short-sighted selfish politics.
We entreat our congressmen to compare this verifiable deal that is backed by the world's major powers to the other already failed or untenable options. We ask our congressmen to help diplomacy lead us and the world to a better place.