Iran negotiations vs. war: Our view

The Editorial Board | USA TODAY

For foreign policy hard-liners, nothing is quite so unnerving as peace negotiations. The nearer an agreement seems, the more they fret that too much will be given away. Better, they think, to hang tough until the other side capitulates.

But the likeliest alternative to the suddenly promising negotiations over Iran's nuclear program is not capitulation. It is war, which makes rising attempts to kill talks in the crib look particularly foolish.

The hard-liners' anxiety has been ramping up to Xanax levels ever since top diplomats, including Secretary of State John Kerry, rushed to Geneva last week in hopes of wrapping up a six-month interim deal that would test Iran's claim that it is willing to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, fresh off a Kerry briefing, started ripping into the negotiations, calling them "the deal of the century for Iran." Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate, where Netanyahu enjoys more influence than any foreign leader should, key senators were threatening to move ahead with legislation that would tighten sanctions, an in-your-face response that almost certainly would kill the Iranian attempt at outreach before it can be explored.

And all of this angst is over a short-term, reversible agreement in which Iran is supposed to freeze its nuclear program for six months. In exchange, some of the sanctions that are steadily crippling the Iranian economy would be eased.

Details of the possible deal remain incomplete and sketchy, so there is still reason to be concerned that it will not be a stern enough test of Iranian motives. The French, for instance, reportedly insisted on tougher restraints on a heavy water reactor that would make plutonium. The plant is still under construction, and plutonium is not necessary for the nuclear energy program that Iran says it is pursuing, so there is no excuse for continuing to build it.

Another hang-up is rules for uranium enrichment. Iran insists on an explicit guarantee of its right to enrich. Netanyahu insists that enrichment be banned. There is plenty of room for compromise on enrichment held to below weapons grade.

Helpfully, in a separate arrangement, Iran agreed Monday to significantly expand international inspections of its nuclear facilities, including for the first time the plutonium plant.

The Iranian initiative might yet turn out to be a feint — an attempt to buy time and relief from sanctions until a bomb can be built. That's reason to make sure that when diplomats reconvene next week, any interim agreement creates a credible freeze, and that the final agreement to follow in six months dismantles the Iranian program.

But scuttling the accord based on fear or worse, the interest of Israel, Saudi Arabia and others in perpetuating hostilities between the U.S. and Iran for their regional benefit, would be incalculably foolish.

In exchange for the small risk of temporarily easing a few lesser sanctions, there is a chance of ending the nuclear confrontation with Iran that otherwise has no good outcome. If an interim deal can create a real freeze — still an open question — that's a trade-off to seize, not to spurn.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.