Agreement Action

The open letter, signed by more than 100 former U.S. ambassadors and senior State Department officials supporting the deal, begins with the words: “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran is a pioneering agreement to deter nuclear proliferation.” [226] [227] Michael Mandelbaum, A. Herter Christian professor at Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies, wrote that nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East ultimately depended “not on the details of the Vienna Agreement, but on the well-known deterrence policy of the Cold War.” Mandelbaum added that if Obama left office without Iran bombing, “the responsibility for conducting an effective deterrence policy will rest with his successor.” [386] Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, said, “Nothing that is currently on the table will discourage Iran. The sanctions are paper protests against an oil-rich nation. Diplomacy has already failed because Russia and China are playing both sides. [387] The consequences of abandoning an agreement and whether a renegotiation of the agreement is a realistic option are an area of divergence between supporters and opponents of the JCPOA. [268] Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, an opponent of the deal, called on the U.S. government to maintain the sanctions, tighten them, and “continue once again the hard diplomatic path, no matter how difficult it may be.” [199] Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, said he thought it was “an exaggeration” to say the deal was the only alternative to war. [268] In contrast, President Obama argued that a renegotiation of the agreement was unrealistic and stated in his speech at American University: “The idea that there is a better agreement. relies on vague promises of harshness” and said, “Those who make this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society or they are not directly with the American people.

Neither the Iranian government, nor the Iranian opposition, nor the Iranian people would agree with what they would consider a total surrender of their sovereignty. [198] Obama also argued: “Those who say we can simply walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have proposed, the rejection of Congress would almost certainly lead to the breakup of multilateral sanctions,” because “our closest allies in Europe or Asia, let alone China or Russia, will certainly not impose new sanctions for another five, ten, fifteen years after the diktat of the US Congress, because their will of Iran has ended its search for nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran could not have peaceful nuclear energy. [198] Foreign Secretary Kerry reiterated these remarks and declared in July 2015 that the idea of a “better deal,” a kind of unicorn arrangement involving Iran`s total surrender. is a fantasy, simple and simple, and our intelligence community will tell you.” [268] [304] Senator Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, a supporter of the deal, wrote, “Some say that if the Senate rejected this deal, we would be able to negotiate a `better.` But I have spoken to representatives of the five nations that helped negotiate the agreement, and they agree that it simply would not be the case. [305] [i] The agreement followed the Joint Plan of Action (JPA), an interim agreement reached in Geneva on November 24, 2013, between the P5+1 powers and Iran. The Geneva agreement was an interim agreement[51] by which Iran agreed to reduce parts of its nuclear program in exchange for facilitating certain sanctions. . . .