The process of deliberations in the U.S. Congress over the Iran nuclear deal seemed until now to be a desperate, but doomed effort to mobilize enough votes to override the inevitable Presidential veto. A very interesting, even juicy topic, but one which is beyond the scope of this particular article. There may be a change brewing, in fact, in light of most recent revelations -- a change in the voting picture in Congress is likely, and from the vantage point of this blog, a very necessary one.
It is the bombshell dropped by AP, according to which the UN watchdog, the IAEA signed a secret agreement with Iran, making sure that the Iranians will be those who will exclusively supervise the nuclear installation in Parchin, near Tehran, which, in the past, was suspected by the IAEA itself to be the site where the Iranians conducted military nuclear experiments.
It is NOT a joke - this is a reality. And now the inevitable storm is already starting to take shape. So, what about the transparency of the agreement with all its annexes, something which Western governments, chief among them the U.S., so much emphasized until now? Why is it, that AP is the source of such crucial information?
Much more importantly, the real question which is becoming crucial is that of verification. It will be a waste of money to even commission a public opinion poll in the U.S., trying to gauge what is the answer given to a simple question: "Do you trust Iran to supervise its own nuclear sites?'' The answer is clear-cut and obviously is in the negative.
This is really making mockery of the entire process of supervision. It annuls this process altogether, and thus turns upside down the most basic argument of the signers of the agreement and its supporters, that is that the elements of verification and trust are well-covered in the ''historic'' agreement. ''Historic'' well maybe as an exercise in self-delusion.
In Israel, the recent revelation has already aroused the unavoidable storm. A personal point is in place here -- while this blog has taken a negative position about the agreement from day one, it also has taken the view that there was need to get hysterical about it, and it suggested the need for an Israeli alternative to the agreement as a desirable course of action for the leaders in Jerusalem.
This latest revelation tilts the balance of the discourse in Israel in a very dramatic way. Who, in their right minds, can tell Netanyahu that he is exaggerating with his vocal and absolute opposition to the agreement? Surely Israeli opinions are important, but not as those of the 535 members of Congress. This is the arena where the main battle is being fought, and where the dramatic revelations can make a difference.
Many Members of the House and Senators already publicized their likely voting, so can there be a change even among them? I, for one, believe that it is possible, as it is logical to some who expressed support on the basis of false information, to change now, claiming that they were deceived. With the overall cynical view of so many in the general public about politicians and their reliability, it may be a sheer naivete to assume that something of this nature can happen. But if we look at the messages published by many of the supporters, justifying their position, one should be struck by the near-apologetic tone taken by many in explaining their choice.
These are the politicians who can do it now, express their revulsion about the latest revelations and vote down this agreement. Those who say that it is war or agreement will continue to say it, as well as those who smell the lavish contracts awaiting businesses here and elsewhere, once the sanctions are finally and completely lifted. These people will not change, but there may be enough others who will. The battle in Congress may be reopening.