Letter to the Editor

On July 14, Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – plus Germany) and the European Union completed a marathon 20 months of negotiations. Together, they announced a historic accord to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities and prevent its development of a nuclear weapon.

Since then, there has been intense debate playing out in the media as individual members of Congress review the nuclear agreement and prepare for a vote on it ahead of a Sept. 17 deadline. While the threshold level of support in the Senate has just been reached to ensure that the deal can survive a resolution of disapproval, it turns out that across the U.S., support for the deal is much stronger than the controversy would indicate.

Formally known as the Joint Congressional Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement places tight restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep for the next 15 years. The current stockpile of low enriched uranium (enriched below 20 percent) will be reduced by 98 percent. This limit, combined with a 67 percent reduction in the number of its centrifuges, would extend the “breakout time” to one year. The breakout time is the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough highly enriched uranium (above 90 percent) for a single nuclear weapon, should it abandon the accord and race for a weapon. By comparison, analysts say Iran currently has a breakout time of two to three months.

A wide variety of scientific and nuclear experts, military leaders, national security experts and political leaders have taken clear positions stating that there is not a credible alternative to the nuclear agreement and that it provides the best path to addressing the issue. These include:

• Dozens of retired U.S. generals and admirals (Aug. 11)
• 75 bipartisan former members of Congress (Aug. 31)
• 29 of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates and former White House science advisers (Aug. 8, now up to 32 signatories)
• A long list of prominent international relations and Middle East scholars (Aug. 27)
• Over 70 distinguished Iranian dissidents (Aug. 31)
• 60 American national security experts (July 20)
• 67 former Israeli intelligence and military experts (Aug. 3)
• 29 of the nation’s top scientists (Aug. 8)
• More than 100 former American ambassadors (July 16)
• All six member nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Aug. 3) – includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.

Last but certainly not least, a University of Maryland poll published on Sept. 1 shows that the majority of Americans support the JCPOA.

One of the more compelling arguments in support of the agreement is made by Iranian political dissidents. They say that a rejection of the JCPOA by the U.S., coupled with the threat of military action that some political leaders in the U.S. have expressed, will empower hardliners in their country to abandon restraint and reignite the pursuit of nuclear capability.

On the other hand, by continuing in a strong coalition and implementing the rigorous program of nuclear oversight outlined in the JCPOA, the U.S. and its European allies can avoid unnecessary war and also positively reinforce a movement toward moderation in Iran. Such movement is much needed in a region of the world where there is tremendous instability, conflict and human suffering.