Anything to Avoid War with Iran: Good Policy?
The current freakish rush to reach a nuclear arms agreement with Iran by the West is a repeat of history in 1938. Then, it was Britain and France desperately seeking a treaty with Hitler, which was a new menace on the horizon. They thought that Hitler could be contained from further ambitions and Hitler played them quite well, knowing full well, what his true intentions were. Both France and Britain were afraid of Germany's expansion and use of new weapon developments tested in the Spanish Civil War. Then, Hitler declared that part of Czechoslovakia was really part of Germany. He threatened to take what he thought was German by using force and massed his still new army near the border. The treaty was reached in the last minute and the photo ops then made every one think "peace". Hitler got what he wanted and in 1939, he seized Poland, claiming it was part of the German empire. Then, in 1940, he blitzed through France and took it.
Now, the West rushes for a similar deja-vu. Despite all the rhetoric, it is still a rush to avoid the worse- a military attack. The sanctions are really working well, which is why Iran wants to negotiate. They do not fear the West because attacking them will be very costly and difficult. They fear internal discontent and public unrest because life in Iran is very expensive and harder because of the government's stance on nuclear enrichment. They want the bomb. They are determined to get it. So, any agreement without the full removal of key elements allowing for making a bomb is an agreement that is moot. It will be a placebo for the West of wishful compliance just as it was in 1938.
The West failed to challenge Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s vow on Day One of the Geneva talks that Iran will not step back “one iota” from its nuclear rights, and his Nazi-like barbaric rant against Israel as “the roguish, filthy, rabid dog of the region,” whose regime is “doomed to extinction?” seemed to not matter at all to the West. Not one leader of the West, France, Britain or U.S. said anything about this. Why? Probably because they want a deal bad, even a bad deal, in their eyes, is better than none.
If Iran does not dismantle its heavy water complex at Arak, it still can produce plutonium for a bomb. This is the only use for such a plant. If Iran does not remove most of its 18000 centrifuges the weaponize uranium, they still can do it over time AND get sanctions lifted. Obviously, Iran wants its cake and eat it, too.
If there is no treaty at the end of the day, the also, bad military option returns. If a treaty does happen, albeit, a bad one, eventually the military option comes up again because over time Iran will have the bomb or more bombs. It all seems to come back to the same thing if the West does not want Iran to have a nuclear bomb.
That said, why wait?