How Scientists Helped Drive The Iran Deal

, former president | September 16, 2015, 9:00 am EDT
Bookmark and Share

Last week, the United States officially approved the Iran nuclear agreement when congressional opponents failed to round up the votes needed to stop it. The debate was often bitter and polarizing, and the vote in the Senate was divided strongly along partisan lines.

But here is something everyone should be able to agree on: scientists played a highly prominent role in this agreement, befitting the complex, technical nature of the subject. At its heart, the agreement is about making sure Iran, a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, does not use its nuclear power program to build nuclear weapons. It’s an extremely complex and technical issue. We were all well served by having scientists identifying the specific risks, devising solutions, resolving myriad technical issues, and explaining the pros and cons to the American public and Congress during the debate.

The critical role for scientists is perhaps best illustrated by the engaged participation of Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz. As an MIT physics professor and expert on nuclear technology, Secretary Moniz has intimate knowledge of the pathways towards a nuclear bomb, making him an ideal point person in the negotiations and the public debate. As Secretary Moniz stated, “we’ve always said that the science underpinning [the agreement] is the origin of the confidence that many of us should have.”


Ernie Moniz. Photo: Idaho National Laboratory

The fingerprints of trained scientists are found everywhere in this agreement.  The expertise of scientists enabled the agreement’s negotiators to understand the current level of Iran’s enrichment technology and capability, develop a set of restrictions that would significantly increase the time needed for Iran to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon, and establish the broad network of inspections and monitoring of the entire supply chain of Iran’s nuclear program to verify that Iran is abiding by the restrictions in the agreement.

When the agreement was first reached, sparking debate across the country, scientists played a major role in the public discussion of the issue. For example, Richard Garwin, a nuclear physicist who helped build the first hydrogen bomb (and a UCS Board member) co-authored a letter explaining the benefits of the deal that was signed by 32 other top scientists, including Nobel laureates and former White House science advisers, and the co-directors of UCS’s Global Security Program. That letter highlighted the innovative nature of the proposed verification measures and bolstered the confidence of many decision makers about the deal’s strength. The letter also warned that, in the absence of the agreement, these experts believed Iran could acquire nuclear weapons capability within a matter of weeks.

It shouldn’t be remarkable when science plays a major role influencing public policy, but it happens less than it should. All too often, it feels as though we live in an era of anti-intellectualism, “nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge,’” as Isaac Asimov once put it.

That’s what makes this case worth highlighting. Here, scientists were listened to and valued, and their expertise was integral to both shaping the agreement and informing the policy debate. What’s more, the public seems to have appreciated their essential role. During the debate over the deal, UCS arranged an “Ask me Anything” event on Reddit, hosted by two prominent scientists that drew the participation of some 30,000 people.

One can only hope this embrace of science-based input spreads to other important matters of public policy.

Could climate policy be next?

Posted in: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Democracy

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • neroden

    Given that Iran has had an absolutely consistent policy of not wanting nuclear weapons for the entire history of the Islamic Republic *and* the entire history of the shah, I find it incredible that anyone thought it was necessary to be paranoid about Iran “secrectly” trying to nuclear weapons. There’s an actual fatwah out against nuclear weapons, from both the current and the previous Supreme Leaders!

    If scientists in the correct fields (history, political science, etc.) had been listened to, they would have been able to explain that there is no danger of Iran getting nuclear weapons because its government doesn’t *want* them.

    The really hilarious part of this is that any scientist who has studied the fields of history, political science, geopolitics, or any related field would understand that under current circumstances it would be *good* for world peace, stability, and democracy if Iran had nuclear weapons. It’s the second-most-democratic country in the Middle East (after Turkey, and not counting India), it has a cultural aversion to starting wars (not started a war in over 300 years). And Iran would provide a counterbalance — a deterrent — to the dangerously unstable nuclear powers of Israel and Pakistan.

    The whole world debate over this has been totally ass-backwards. All the chattering classes act as if Iran is secretly trying to get nuclear weapons and act as if that would be bad. In fact, Iran has no interest in nuclear weapons whatsoever, but it would be good if they had them. Wild disconnect from reality.

    The “Iran Deal” is mostly a set of reassurances for these delusional fearmongers.

  • Richard Solomon

    I also hope climate policy will be the next issue for which science plays a more prominent role in policy making. But the opponents of what I believe is sensible decision making on this issue have very deep pockets and a huge incentive to prevent change. The struggle will continue and even intensify in the months to come. So UCS’and its members must stay committed to doing what’s best for the planet!

  • More and more, scientists play a part in the political process. Politicians would be wise to take advice from experts in their fields, and actually follow through when such is the consensus of recommendations.