PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected
his nuclear deal, which was ill conceived from the start....
This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iranís bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iranís nuclear program.
The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb.
But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in ďsalami slicingĒ ó a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. ...
Tehranís rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iranís nuclear facilities
or acquiescence to Iranís acquisition of nuclear weapons.