Why the president of a group opposing the Iran agreement decided to call it quits

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/president-group-opposing-iran-agreement-decided-call-quits/

Aug. 12, 2015

Gary Samore helped establish the advocacy group United Against a Nuclear Iran in 2008, before serious negotiations began over the nation's nuclear program. When the nuclear deal was signed last month, the group offered a near-unanimous opposition to the pact. But Samore disagreed; satisfied with the agreement, he stepped down as the group's president.

•••••

So, you worked with an organization. At least for the past two years, you helped lead an organization that’s core mission was to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What made you want to step down?

GARY SAMORE, Harvard University: Well, as you said, I disagreed with the organization on whether or not to support the agreement.

In my judgment, this agreement is the best available option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Others in the group came to a different conclusion. I respect that, but under the circumstances, I didn’t feel I could continue to be president of the organization at the same time that they were mounting a campaign to encourage Congress to reject the agreement.

•••••

I think there are elements of this agreement that I’m not comfortable with. I think it leaves Iran with a larger enrichment program than I would prefer and I think the duration of the agreement isn’t as long as I would like. But, on the other hand, I think the agreement has some positive elements.

It constrains Iran’s ability to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons at its declared facilities for at least 15 years. And it establishes a verification and enforcement mechanism that I think will improve our ability to catch Iran cheating and our ability to reimpose sanctions.

So, on balance, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. And I’m skeptical we can negotiate a significantly better deal within a short period of time.

•••••

The question, I think, is this deal compared to a better deal if we reject it and try to renegotiate? And I think, in the near term, it’s unlikely that we could negotiate a deal that would be significantly better. My judgment at the end of the day is that it’s better to have a bird in hand than two in the bush, and I think this deal is good enough so that we should support it.

•••••