Interpreting the New Iran Deal.

Author:Abrahamson, James L.


By John Allen Gay, Asst. Managing Editor, National Interest

THE SUPPORTER: See also the review of Clifford May's argument opposing the Iran deal.

John Gay argues that the deal worked out with the Iranian diplomats "isn't so bad," at least based on the details "released by the White House." It calls for Iran to stop enriching uranium to 20% and either "dilute or convert its entire stockpile," which means Iran would require more time to build a nuclear weapon. Nor may Iran employ its faster-working centrifuges, install any new ones, or (maybe) activate any not in use. The deal also placed "significant restrictions" on the potential plutonium-producing reactor being constructed at Arak, which gained French support.

Iran also accepted more international monitoring of its nuclear facilities, daily access to Natanz and Fordow, and more access to Arak and the details of its design. Monitors will also ensure that facilities that manufacting Iran's centrifuges do not divert any of them to some secret site

To gain the concessions described above, the Western powers had to accept that Fordow would continue operating, Iran would retain its stockpile of 20% uranium, and continue uranium enrichment...

To continue reading