Iran deal warrants approval: Our view

The fight in Washington over the Iran nuclear deal appears all over but the shouting. Opponents don't have the votes in Congress to block the agreement. But that isn't stopping dueling television and newspaper ads from spelling out the pros and cons, or presidential candidates from trying to seize political advantage.

On Wednesday, Republicans Donald Trump and Ted Cruz appeared at a Washington rally against the agreement, with Trump railing against the "very, very stupid" leaders who negotiated it, hours after Democrat Hillary Clinton gave a speech endorsing the deal but saying it must be enforced with "vigor and vigilance."

Ted Cruz: A catastrophic threat to security

On the facts and the logic, the supporters have the better argument.

Amid all the regrettably partisan rhetoric, it's easy to lose sight of the deal's fundamentals: In return for relief from international economic sanctions, Iran, currently thought to be a couple of months away from having enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb, is blocked for at least a decade from developing nuclear weapons. It agrees to reduce its centrifuges by two-thirds and eliminate 98% of its enriched uranium.

As Republican former secretary of State Colin Powell put it Sunday on Meet the Press, "It's a remarkable reduction. I'm amazed that they would do this. But they have done it." Although the agreement leaves a road to a bomb open to the Iranians 10 or 15 years from now, Powell pointed out, "they have been on a superhighway for the last 10 years … with no speed limit."

With its less-than-airtight inspections regime, this deal isn't perfect. But it's better than no deal. Opponents of the agreement have yet to come up with a realistic or attainable alternative.

Opponents claim they don't want war. Instead, they say, a rejection by Congress would force everyone back to the negotiating table for a "better deal." Let's get real. That simply won’t happen. America's negotiating partners — Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia — have warned that they won't return to the talks. And why would they, when Congress could simply reject any new deal all over again?

Iran, meanwhile, would have fewer incentives than ever to negotiate or compromise. Its hard-liners could seize on U.S. rejection of the deal as an excuse to ramp up the nation’s nuclear weapons program immediately to defend against the threat of an attack by Israel or the United States.

Many of the sanctions that opponents insist could be reimposed to renew pressure on Iran would already have been lifted without the right to "snap" them back into place, which the deal provides. The United Nations has already voted to lift the sanctions over which it has jurisdiction, on the condition that Iran meets the terms of the agreement and passes inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Finally, as Congress begins its debate, it’s worth examining the reverse scenario. If the Iranian parliament rejected the deal, would the U.S. and its partners rush back to Vienna to offer Iran better terms? Don't bet on it.

The opponents are surely right about one thing: This deal is highly unlikely to change the nasty nature of Iran's regime. Any belief that it will is wishful thinking. As if to reinforce that, Iran's supreme leader said Wednesday that Tehran won't expand talks with the United States, and he predicted that Israel won't exist in 25 years.

This agreement is best seen as a no-illusions transaction that averts worse outcomes for both sides. And what if the Iranians make a dash toward nuclear weapons at some point? In that case, this administration and the ones that follow should make it clear that the military option remains very much on the table.

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.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion e-mail newsletter.