Assessing the Iran Deal
Assessing the Iran Deal
Loading...
Files
Publication or External Link
Date
2015-09-01
Authors
Gallagher, Nancy
Mohseni, Ebrahim
Ramsay, Clay
Advisor
Citation
Nancy Gallagher, Ebrahim Mohseni, Clay Ramsay, "Assessing the Iran Deal," CISSM Publication, September 2015.
DRUM DOI
Abstract
On July 14, 2015, after two years of negotiations, the
United States, the other permanent members of the
UN Security Council, Germany, and Iran announced
they had reached agreement on a Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear
program. On July 20 the Security Council endorsed the
agreement unanimously.
Under terms agreed between the U.S. Congress and
the White House, Congress has until September 17th to
disapprove the JCPOA if it wants to prevent President
Obama from suspending U.S. nuclear sanctions after
Iran fulfills its nuclear commitments. Thus an intense
debate is underway.
Advocates on both sides have been making their
appeals to the American public at a volume, and with a
forcefulness, seen in foreign policy issues only a few
times a decade. After the initial rollout of the
agreement—a phase in which the White House
essentially held the floor—critics of the agreement
have been widely heard, both in and out of Congress.
Media polls have been sporadic and inconsistent. In
polls that offer respondents the opportunity to say that
they do not have enough information to say,
approximately half take it. In this case, the minority
opposing the deal tends to outweigh those favoring it.
In some polls that give respondents minimal
information about the basic outlines of the deal,
majorities have approved of it. Apparently Americans
have low levels of information and their responses are
affected by minimal inputs.
Citizen Cabinet surveys are not meant to simply be
another poll. Rather the goal is to find out what a
representative panel of registered voters recommends
when they are given a briefing and hear arguments for
and against the key options. The process they go
through is called a ‘policymaking simulation,’ in that
the goal is to put the respondent into the shoes of a
policymaker. The content of the simulation is vetted
with Congressional staffers and other experts to assure
accuracy and balance.
Earlier Citizen Cabinet surveys on the Iran deal focused
on the central debate at the time as to whether the US
should make a deal based on allowing Iran limited
uranium enrichment with intrusive inspections or if it
should seek to ramp up economic sanctions in an effort
to get Iran to give up its enrichment program entirely.
Arguments for both options were found convincing but
in the end, in February, 61% in a national Citizen
Cabinet recommended in favor of making the deal. In
June Citizen Cabinet surveys in three states (Oklahoma,
Maryland, and Virginia) went through the same process
but with more detail about the draft agreement. In all
states seven in ten recommended the deal over
ramping up sanctions.
In the current Citizen Cabinet survey the simulation
focused much more deeply on the terms of the deal,
especially the terms that have been highly criticized by
Members of Congress. Panelists were first briefed on
the origins of the international dispute over Iran’s
nuclear program and the main issues during the
negotiations and given a detailed summary of the
agreement’s main features. Then panelists evaluated a
series of critiques—some general, some quite
specific—prominent in the Congressional debate, and
assessed a rebuttal offered for each.
Panelists then assessed proposals for three alternative
courses of action that have been proposed, evaluating
arguments for and against each and also assessing each
one’s chances of success. Finally panelists were asked
what they would recommend to their member of
Congress—to approve the deal, or disapprove of it,
and, if the latter, what alternative course to take.