In defending his framework for a deal with Iran (or whatever one wants to call it), President Obama challenges opponents to say what their alternative is. It’s telling that he seems to be relying so heavily on this defense. If one makes a good deal, one touts the deal. One doesn’t plead that there were no better alternatives.
In any event, it’s no challenge to say what the alternative to Obama’s framework is. The obvious alternative to a deal that doesn’t prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons AND allows its economy to rebound and probably flourish is this: an arrangement in which Iran isn’t prevented from developing nuclear weapons BUT isn’t able to rebound or flourish economically.
In an Iran that doesn’t rebound or flourish economically, the theocratic, anti-Western regime is in big trouble. This, of course, explains why the mullahs came to the bargaining table in the first place.
There are other alternatives to the one I describe, but it is the obvious one.
I’m assuming here that Obama’s deal doesn’t prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I think that’s clearly the case, but the issue requires discussion.
And that’s where the discussion must center. Either Obama’s deal blocks Iran or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, there’s no need for further talk about alternatives.