海角大神

The television ads are airing across the country, from Washington to Honolulu: The Iran nuclear deal is a 鈥渂ad deal,鈥� the ad says, before concluding, 鈥淲e want a better deal.鈥�

As Congress debates the complex international agreement limiting Iran鈥檚 nuclear program in anticipation of a September vote, the option of rejecting this deal in favor of a 鈥渂etter deal鈥� appears to be catching on. On Wednesday, Rep. Grace Meng (D) of New York announced she would oppose the deal on the table, believing 鈥渢he world could and should have a better deal.鈥�

But what is the likelihood that an agreement negotiated over several years between six world powers and Iran could indeed be renegotiated and toughened up if Congress rejects the current deal and overcomes a promised presidential veto?

The deep divisions over that question come down, more than anything, to people鈥檚 perception of Iran: whether or not it is a country the United States should be entangled with in such a complex deal, whether or not it should be allowed to possess any uranium enrichment program at all.

Critics of the Iran deal say there is plenty of historical precedent for renegotiating and amending international agreements. They argue that Iran is so intent on getting a deal with the US that Tehran could be brought back to the negotiating table after the shock of a congressional rejection.

鈥淭here is an alternative to the current [deal], it is an amended deal,鈥� says Mark Dubowitz, an international sanctions expert and executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) in Washington.

Citing nearly 80 multilateral agreements Congress has either rejected or for which it has required amendments, he says, 鈥淐ongress should require the administration to renegotiate certain terms of the proposed [deal] and resubmit the amended agreement to Congress.鈥�

But senior administration officials involved in the Iran negotiations say there is no chance the deal could be renegotiated 鈥� and they warn that instead of tighter controls on Iran鈥檚 nuclear program, rejection of the deal would very likely result in a ramped-up uranium enrichment program. That, in turn, would mean a shrinking 鈥渂reakout鈥� time for Iran to rush to produce a nuclear weapon, if it chose to, they add.

Calling the prospect of a 鈥渂etter deal鈥� a 鈥渇antasy,鈥� Secretary of State John Kerry told senators last week that those demanding a renegotiated deal, including in the TV ads he鈥檇 seen, were proffering 鈥渟ome sort of unicorn arrangement involving Iran鈥檚 complete capitulation鈥� 鈥� something he said is not going to happen.

Some nonproliferation experts echo that position, saying the Iranian nuclear program was already too advanced years ago to reduce it any more than what the deal reached July 14 does.

鈥淪ure I鈥檇 like a better deal 鈥� I鈥檇 like a pony, too, but it鈥檚 not realistic,鈥� says Jeffrey Lewis, director of nonproliferation studies at the Middlebury聽Institute of International Studies at Monterey, Calif. 鈥淭he most important thing now is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon in the next 10 to 15 years, and this deal does that.鈥�

Others are much less certain the deal blocks Iran鈥檚 paths to a nuclear weapon, but they believe a renegotiated deal could.

FDD's Mr. Dubowitz says he sees three different directions the Iran nuclear issue could take if Congress rejects the current deal and holds out for an agreement 鈥渞enegotiated on better terms.鈥�

Iran could go ahead and implement its commitments under the deal, he says. It聽could also聽鈥渁bandon its commitments鈥� and escalate it nuclear program. Or it could try to do both, complying with certain commitments while abandoning others 鈥� and thus attempt to divide world powers while advancing its nuclear program.

But under any of those scenarios, Dubowitz says, the US could work to 鈥減ersuade the Europeans to join the US鈥� in demanding a renegotiation of key parts of the deal.

Yet many regional experts say that prospects for wooing the Europeans to join the US in pressing for a tougher deal, if Congress rejects the one now before it, are dim.

鈥淓uropean and Asian partners would feel frustrated and misled鈥� in the wake of a US rejection of the deal, Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert at Washington鈥檚 Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the House Armed Services Committee this week. European allies would likely join countries like China and India in investing in Iran鈥檚 energy sector, he added.

鈥淏roadly, the action would create distance between the US and the world and diminish distance between Iran and the world,鈥� Dr. Alterman added, 鈥渁fter more than a decade when the reverse was the case.鈥澛犅犅犅� 聽聽

Looming large over the calls for a return to negotiations are strong suspicions on the part of deal supporters that the 鈥渂etter deal鈥� advocates really have no interest in a stronger deal at all, but instead want to thwart any US agreement with the Iranian government.

鈥淲e had a 鈥榖etter deal鈥� in Iraq after 1991 [following the Gulf War], there were no restrictions, inspectors could go where they wanted when they wanted, and that deal wasn鈥檛 good enough,鈥� says Dr. Lewis, adding that 鈥渨e still went to war. So really I don鈥檛 believe them when they say they just want a 鈥榖etter deal鈥� this time.鈥�

Other doubters of the sincerity of the seekers of a 鈥渂etter deal鈥� say it鈥檚 telling to note that the sponsor of the TV ad campaign demanding a better deal is a group called Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, which is backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel organization lobbying Congress hard for the deal鈥檚 defeat.

鈥淭here really is no 鈥榖etter deal鈥� for [such critics] in the sense of an agreement that leaves any nuclear program in the hands of the current Iranian government,鈥� Lewis says. 鈥淎ny deal is bad because it means living with the Islamic Republic.鈥�