• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
    • Our Mission
      • Political Islam
    • Areas of Expertise
      • Economic Warfare
        • Cyber Security
      • U.S. Policy
      • Anti-Corruption
      • Foreign Election Observing
      • Supporting Free Speech
        • Legislation
      • Impact of ACD’s Work
      • Free Speech Celebration, U.S. Senate
    • Board of Directors & Advisors
    • Our Team
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
  • Our Impact
    • Endorsements
    • Additional Praise
  • Media
    • Events
      • Coming Events
    • Radio
    • Television
    • Youtube
  • Publications
    • All Posts Archive
    • Articles
    • Books
    • Papers
    • Presentations
    • Recommended Readings
  • Free Speech
    • Legislation & Support
    • Impact of ACD’s Work
      • Free Speech Celebration, U.S. Senate
      • Some Congressional Testimonies
      • 9/2010: SPEECH Act Celebration
  • Economic warfare
    • The Impact of Purposeful Interference on U.S. Cyber Interests
    • Cyber/Space, EMP Insecurity- Current and Future Threats
    • The Existential EMP Threat
    • New Strategies to Secure U.S. Economy from Cyber Attacks
    • Economic Warfare Subversions July 9, 2012
    • CyberSpace Security – Papers And Articles
    • Cyber Security
    • Da’esh “lite” North America Islamist – Sources
    • The Muslim Brotherhood and Da’esh “Lite” in North America
  • Support ACD
    • Donate
    • Subscribe
    • Contact
American Center for Democracy

American Center for Democracy

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • Free Speech
  • U.S. Policy
    • U.S. Foreign Policy
  • Political Islam
    • Canada
    • Hamas
    • Iran
    • Islam
    • Muslim Brotherhood
    • Palestinian
    • United States
  • Narco-Terrorism
  • Middle East Conflicts
    • Iran
    • Israel
  • Global Conflicts
    • China
    • North Korea
    • Russia
    • Ukraine
  • Soros
You are here: Home / ACD/EWI Blog / After Vienna: Three Scenarios for Likely Confrontation with Iran*

After Vienna: Three Scenarios for Likely Confrontation with Iran*

August 3, 2015 by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror @ BESA**

Left: TEHRAN (FNA) – Iranian Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan stressed plans to powerfully continue manufacturing different modern weapons and equipment to increase the country’s deterrence power.

Summary

It is impossible to claim, in light of all the shortcomings of the agreement as described above, that the agreement should be supported even if it is not perfect. This agreement will likely and necessarily lead to the use of force against Iran, at some stage or other, in order to halt its race toward nuclear weapons. This, however, will take place in far worse conditions than before the agreement, against a far-stronger Iran.

Those who claimed that Israel should not act against Iran, as Iran is an international problem that will be addressed by the US, made a huge mistake. The truth must be told: This agreement has made the situation more complex and dangerous, not less so.

The administration claims that “this was the best agreement that could have be achieved, and should therefore it should upheld.” But since the contents of the discussions between the parties are not known, the only way for us to evaluate the negotiations is by the results. For example: Some have asked why the US did not include other issues, beyond the nuclear question, in the agreement, such as a commitment from Iran to desist from involvement in international terror. The American answer is that Washington did not want to include issues that would complicate the negotiations, and that might even lead to additional Iranian demands on nuclear issues in response. They therefore chose to stay focused on Iran’s nuclear program.

This answer does not hold up under scrutiny. At the very end of the negotiations, Iran sought concessions on two non-nuclear issues: The removal of sanctions on their missile program and on their conventional weapons build-up. In both cases, Washington agreed to an Iranian demand that had no connection to the nuclear issue. Sanctions on conventional weapons are to be lifted after five years, and sanctions on missiles will be lifted after a further three years.

Thus Iran was able to achieve non-nuclear concessions via the negotiations, while the US, by its own admission, did not even try to do so. If no attempt is made to improve vital issues during the negotiations, it is impossible to then claim that this was the best possible agreement.

As to the question, “Yes, but what is the alternative?” there is a clear answer. The alternative was increasing the pressure of sanctions, conducting stubborn negotiations, and making serious preparations for military action that would crystalize all options on the table. Together, these would achieve a better agreement.

The choice was between a bad agreement, like the one achieved, and a far better agreement, because the Iranians desperately needed to conclude a deal. Why the six powers agreed to a bad agreement is an interesting historical question. In the meantime, we are left to deal with its consequences, which for Israel (and in my opinion for most of the world) are extremely serious.

*For the full article, see BESA Center

**Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is the Greg and Anne Rosshandler Senior Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and former national security advisor to the Prime Minister. He is also a fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Strategy and Defense. He served 36 years in senior IDF posts, including commander of the Military Colleges, military secretary to the Minister of Defense, director of the Intelligence Analysis Division in Military Intelligence, and chief intelligence officer of the Northern Command.

Filed Under: ACD/EWI Blog, Arms, Cold War, Egypt, Europe, European Union, Gulf, Iran, Iran Nuclear agreement, ISIS, ISIS/IS, Israel, Latest News, Lebanon, Middle East Conflicts, Mideast, Nuclear Iran, Nuclear threat, Nuclear Weapons, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Turkey, U.S., U.S. Foreign Policy

Primary Sidebar

ORDER THE SOROS AGENDA ...
Buy The Soros Agenda

Search ACD

Categories

The Soros Agenda

g. soros

Soros: The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part I

Rachel Ehrenfeld & Shawn Macomber

Soros: The Man Who Would Be Kingmaker, Part II

Soros: The Man Who Would be Kingmaker, Part III

Soros: The Man Who Would be Kingmaker, Part IV

Spotlight

quote by j.woolsey obama signing Rachel's law chemical terrorism transportation terrorism nuclear threats on the rise islamist incitement winning the cyberwar gps concepts and misconceptions libel tourism

Tags

antisemitism Caliphate Canada capital punishment China Christians Daniel Haqiqatjou Dawah Disinformation genocide Hamas Iran ISIS Islam Islamic Party of Ontario Islamic Relief Canada Islamization Islamophobia Israel J. Millard Burr Jews jihad Justin Trudeau LGBT liberalism Liberal Party Muslim Brotherhood Muslims NCCM Norman Bailey Ontario Palestine Political Islam Quran Russia Salaheddin Islamic Centre Saudi Arabia Sharia Sol W. Sanders SOROS Syria Terrorism Toronto US women's rights

Footer

About ACD

ACD is a New York-based 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, which monitors and exposes the enemies of freedom and their modus operandi, and explores pragmatic ways to counteract their methods.

Endorsements

"The ACD/EWI ability to predict future threats is second to none"

- R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence

- - - More Endorsements - - -

Follow ACD!

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Copyright © 2023 | The American Center for Democracy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent of the law.