Just saying ‘no’ to nuclear pact with Iran not a rational stance

Prime Minister Benjamin Netan- yahu of Israel and his allies in the U.S. Congress have 21/2 months to demonstrate their sincerity in finding a peaceful end to Iran’s nuclear endeavors.

Netanyahu is of the opinion that the framework of a nuclear agreement announced last week after intense negotiations between Iran and the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany is proof that the Islamic Republic is being given too much credit for honesty.

The prime minister appeared on the Sunday talk shows and charged that a final agreement will give Iran the capability of building nuclear weapons, which will threaten Israel’s existence. He wants the negotiators for the U.S. and its five partners to return to the bargaining table to hammer out a pact that eliminates any possibility of Iran, a supporter of Islamic extremist groups and Israel’s avowed enemy, ever building a nuclear weapon.

To achieve this, Netanyahu says economic sanctions that were imposed by the U.S. and other nations several years ago should be expanded so Iran’s growing financial instability is exacerbated. Then, not only would the ayatollahs, who ultimately rule the country, be incapable of funding a nuclear program, but the public discontent with the fiscal upheaval could result in a backlash against the government in Tehran.

There are a lot of assumptions implicit in what the Israeli leader is proposing, foremost of which is that all countries now honoring the sanctions will continue to do so. Seeing as how the U.S. is not alone in negotiating with Iran, how does Israel intend to persuade Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany that the current sanctions should not only remain in place indefinitely, but additional ones should be imposed? Indeed, how does he sell the idea to the Europeans and others who support the framework and want the June 30 deadline for an agreement to be met?

This isn’t just about the United States and its unwavering historic support for Israel. Iran is a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire Middle East and to European nations that have large Muslim populations. The communities are now breeding grounds for Islamic extremists determined to do harm to non-Muslim countries.

Clarity needed

There is need for clarity on the part of the Israeli leader and the Republicans on Capitol Hill who share his aversion to the agreement being worked out with Iran.

They should answer this question: Short of bombing the Islamic nation’s nuclear facilities to smithereens, what terms would be acceptable for an agreement?

At the same time, it is incumbent upon President Barack Obama; Secretary of State John Kerry, who led the American negotiating team; and other administration officials to provide members of Congress with details about the framework. Obama should also be prepared to respond to Republicans’ criticism that the White House has kowtowed to the Iranians and that the ayatollahs will ultimately develop nuclear weapons if the facilities are allowed to remain intact.

As for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s dismissal of the negotiations and the potential agreement, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., warned Sunday that his uncompromising position could backfire on him. She added that the Israeli leader should “contain himself.”

Just saying “no” does not get to the heart of the matter.