The Russian representative in the nuclear talks in Vienna said last week that Iran had received much more than she expected.
Moreover, the "objective" mediator on behalf of the European Union for talks, Enrico Moreh, is the one who traveled to Iran about six months ago for the inauguration of President Mousavi.
And as if all this were not enough to understand that the situation in Vienna as a whole is against the Israeli interest, this is joined by the public concern of members of American Congress, some 200 Republicans who have called on Biden to bring the agreement under scrutiny and approval by Congress.
Another similar letter was also attended by 12 Democrats, and last week the Republican Party held an emergency conference on the issue and pledged that the next president on its behalf would cancel the agreement.
The important conclusion for the State of Israel is one: it is better not to have an agreement at all, than a bad agreement.
Compromisers of any agreement believe that in the nuclear aspect, this will delay Iran from reaching its destination, and in the broader political aspect, a diplomatic process will moderate the Iranian aggression.
Both insights are wrong: A "delay" policy alone contradicts Israel's and global commitment to a nuclear Iran.
In addition, the economic side agreement in 2015 led to an increase in Iran's aggression.
The latest erroneous claim made by proponents of the bad deal is that after the US withdrew from the deal - Iran's nuclear development efforts intensified. The opposite is true. Based on IAEA data, Iran did not return to enrich uranium in bulk in 2018, after Trump left the deal , But in 2021, after Biden entered the White House.
Second, there is evidence that Iran has violated the agreement already with its signing (the military nuclear program, for example).
Third, the United States' exit from the agreement alone did not stop Iran, because European countries remained in it. Imagine what would have happened if they had joined a heavy global sanctions regime, only in reality they activated indirect mechanisms for transferring funds to Iran, despite the sanctions.
Moreover, while a bad agreement allows Iran to continue to enrich uranium and strengthen its nuclear infrastructure "for research purposes," if there is no agreement any such action would be illegal - and therefore, action could be taken against it.
And when there is an agreement signed by the United States and all the world powers, will Israel be able (and dare) to attack Iran? Europe can (and will) act against Iran, if required to do so by the Russian gas.
Former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said withdrawing from the agreement was not the problem because the agreement was not the solution. And ultimately to its transformation into a nuclear state.In this reality, the moral duty, in Israel and in the world, is to prefer that there be no agreement at all, rather than a bad agreement.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us