With key changes, Iran deal can work

If ever there was a time to call your congressman or congresswoman, it is now. As Congress undertakes its review of the Iran nuclear agreement, ordinary American citizens should do the same. Instead of sitting on the sidelines as they often do and wait to see where their elected leaders end up, they should become active participants in this process.

That won’t be easy. It will take time and effort to grasp the fundamental issues posed by the agreement. It will also require putting aside the partisan lens through which political issues and presidential initiatives are usually viewed. But that effort is warranted, because what Congress decides will affect world affairs as few developments on the international stage have done in recent times.

Supporters and opponents of the deal agree on the danger that Iran’s nuclear program poses to the global community and that even without nuclear weapons, Iran has been a destabilizing force in the Middle East. It funds and supplies terrorist groups throughout the region and beyond, fueling its proxies in the region: Hizballah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, to name just a few.

Iran violates the human rights of its own citizens, holds foreign captives, and continually threatens to annihilate a fellow United Nations member state: Israel. With nuclear weapons, Iran’s capacity to threaten its neighbors and cause murder and mayhem through its terrorist partners would be magnified. With $100 billion to $150 billion in unfrozen assets, Iran will have a huge war chest to support its destabilizing activities in the region and terrorism worldwide.

While the intentions of the American negotiators may have been honorable, the desire to reach an agreement may have kept them from reaching the best accord possible. So is there a third path that should be considered, turning a bad deal into one we can work with? Instead of choosing between “It’s a good deal” and “It’s a bad deal,” can we identify the serious weaknesses and uncertainties of the agreement and seek ways beyond the agreement to address them?

We could seek ancillary agreements with other members of the “P5+1” nations, which negotiated the agreement that specifies the sanctions that would be reimposed by specific Iranian violations. That way, we could keep Iran on a very short leash with fast and strong responses to even marginal violations.

We could also ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the resources and authority it needs to fulfill its monitoring role, and hold its feet to the fire if it relaxes its diligence.

We could continue to talk tough and act tough in response to Iranian threats against Israel and other states in the region, responding with sanctions, isolating actions, diplomatic punishments, covert operations and other moves.

In addition, we could enhance America’s antiterrorism activity in the Middle East and increase our intelligence-sharing and defensive weapon development with Israel.

This is not a time to advocate for simplistic solutions that have little or no chance of success or that leave U.S. military action against Iran as the only other option. It is a time for respectful debate in Congress and respectful conversations among our citizenry.

The outcome may not be one that satisfies everyone and resolves all their concerns. But it may get us to the best response we can make to address Iran’s hostile regime — a response our nation can live with.

Dr. Richard Krugel is the president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Metropolitan Detroit.