The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) affects the entire free world and we can’t afford to be side tracked by prejudice or political or commercial interests or blaming Israel for the widespread objections to obvious flaws.

The random observations expressed below point to the real danger that, unless the deal is modified, the USA is likely to suffer the loss of its security arrangements with several countries, principally its traditional allies in the Gulf States

  1. On April 14, 2015 Al Jazeera quoted several expert analysts.

Saudi researcher, Mansour al-Marzouki, said

an increasing Iranian influence that thrives on weak governments like Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, is what ISIL capitalizes on in its recruitment drive. The deal means that Iran will have the ability to create a nuclear weapon – since it will only be effective for 15 years, and it will not destroy Iran’s capabilities to maintain a nuclear program.

As a warning to the USA, Saudi officials say their country would develop its own nuclear program and seek new alliances, given the decline of US influence and the unreliability of American assurances.

United Arab Emirates researcher, Nasser Ahmed Bin Ghaith said

In Geneva, everybody concerned was present except the Gulf States, which would be directly impacted in their backyard by any agreement.

He too warned that the Gulf States may abandon their military and security alliance with US and build strategic partnerships with Pakistan and Turkey.”

  1. On August 1, 2015 Hisham Melhem wrote in Al Arabia

regardless of whether sanctions relief will give Iran $60 billion or $100 billion, the fact remains that some of these funds will be given to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to fund its terrorist operations and influence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and beyond.”

  1. On August 14 Melhem wrote that Iran found itself, negotiating secretly, dueling publicly and bargaining incessantly and cunningly with the six most powerful countries in the world. Iran has mastered the art of proxy wars by fighting Arabs with Arabs from Lebanon, to Syria, to Iraq and all the way to Yemen and is still bent on becoming the regional hegemon and the agreement limits Iran’s ability to acquire ballistic missile technologies to only eight years.

What is not in dispute is that Iran will be a threshold nuclear nation even before the expiration of the 15 year duration of the agreement,. most Most of the physical infrastructure of the nuclear program will remain intact and even if Iran remains in full compliance, the agreement gives it more nuclear capacity than it would need if it is truly interested only in a strictly civilian program..For an ancient culture like Iran, suspending a nuclear program for 10 or 15 years is barely a fleeting moment”.

4. On July 25, The British Economist reported that the Saudi daily Al Sharq al Awsat says “The Iranian regime is like a monster that was tied to a tree and has finally been set loose”.

Hussein Shobokshi says

Iran before the agreement was an enemy, a powerful hungry regime. After the agreement it has become a devil, a mad hulk with green eyes.

  1. Lebanese leader Walid Joumblatt wrote in Al Anbaa Newspaper that the deal was concluded on the wreckage of the Arab world which has descended into chaos and darkness at a time when regional and international players content to watch Arab blood wasted as they seek only their interests, totally excluding the Arabs and their role in their own region.
  1. In the UK Telegraph, Peter Foster wrote that opponents of the deal accuse the Obama administration of allowing “secret side-deals” between Tehran and the IAEA that make it impossible for them to properly scrutinize the deal. They don’t even have a copy of the agreement to ascertain whether the IAEA process has any integrity.
  1. Many believe the real dangers are being downplayed by overwhelming commercial interests. Al Arabia points to countries and corporations anxious to benefit from what they see as a big treasure in the released sanctions.

Already, we are seeing the beginning of a long caravan of eager diplomats, from Europe, Russia, and China and even from some Arab countries moving on the road to Tehran to do business. During the negotiations, the French staked a hard line position. But after the deal was signed, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius was the second senior European official to visit Tehran (after the German minister of the economy Sigmar Gabriel), to talk business and invite President Hassan Rouhani to visit Paris in November.

Conclusion

Those responsible for dealing with the JCPOA must in their own true interests concentrate on its details, consider the implications, engage in civil discourse with all interested parties and avoid being distracted by the current scurrilous, illogical use of bigotry and prejudice. Smearing those who draw attention to serious flaws degrades the essence of democracy. Accusing those who are sincerely concerned about some of the implications after investing time and effort in studying the agreement, of acting contrary to the best interests of the US, is degrading and harmful.

Presenting the debate as a conflict only between Israel and the administration is dangerously misleading and demonstrates a total disregard for the real flaws as described above as well as in the sober, informed analysis by the Washington Institute described in part 1.