There is a terrible narrative being written about those who oppose the deal that will soon be announced between Western powers and Iran. The opposition to this deal are being described as war hawks, clamoring for the U.S. to once again entrench itself in a futile war in the Middle East. Such a war would supposedly be in the name of trying to preclude Iran from nuclear capabilities, similar to the false purpose of the Iraq War in 2003. But anyone, anyone at all, who genuinely cares about the future of Israel and the rest of the Middle East should not be part of any such opposition. If such “war hawks” do in fact exist within the opposition to the deal, those genuinely concerned about peace in the Middle East must distance themselves from such people.

But, there are many indications that the agreement in Vienna may only increase the instability in the Middle East and will lead to more Iran-sponsored proxy wars. The only sense in which support for the Iran deal differs from a “Yes” vote for the Iraq War is that an American who supports the deal isn’t stating that they would like to send troops to the Middle East. Otherwise, support for the deal and a “yes” vote will both share the premise of: a lack of information, starting wars that were meant to be prevented, and motivating a mass weaponization.

Many of the details of this deal have yet to come out and it is also extremely technical. We know there have been compromises on the inspections that will be done by the IAEA; no random inspections and no inspections of military sites. There have been compromises on the breakout time, from ten years to one year to now three months. What that means is that it would take three months for Iran, if they chose to break all the restrictions on their uranium enrichment, to develop a nuclear weapon. And we also know that Iran has insisted that sanctions be lifted as soon as an agreement is reached, removing any leverage the P5+1 powers may have to enforce the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.

What else do we know? Saudi Arabia has publicly announced its intentions to buy a bomb from Pakistan if Iran came close to a weapon. Iran has sent troops, supplies, and instructors to paramilitary groups currently fighting in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. The IAEA, the UN body responsible for monitoring nuclear activity, has said Iran remains secretive about many parts of its nuclear program and continues to enrich uranium at concerning levels.

In simple terms, this deal is meant to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. It may still get the bomb…if not now, maybe in ten years. But even before then, Saudi Arabia or Qatar or another country could get bombs of their own. Or they could plead the US to supply them with missile defense systems to protect them from a potential Iranian threat that the US has given oxygen to–further weaponizing the region and also giving more money to American defense contractors. Congrats to the military industrial complex. In Iraq in 2003, the US came to take down Saddam Hussein and institute a democratic system of government. Instead, sectarian conflict destroyed the country as small militia groups sought weapons wherever they could get a hold of them.

Second, this deal is meant to prevent a nuclear war in the Middle East and to preserve the current number of nuclear-armed states globally, yet it does not to address Iran fueling proxy wars across the region. While no one is expecting Iran to become best of friends with the West as soon as this deal is announced, there is no question that Iran will soon gain back the 20% of its GDP that it had lost from sanctions once it opens trade with the West. Economic trade will resume and almost give some credibility to the Iran-sponsored proxy wars. After all, Iran’s funding for those wars have to come from somewhere. The Iraq War was meant to remove the Middle East’s worst tyrant once and for all. While the connections between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current war in Iraq and Syria may not be direct, one would be hard-pressed to say the current situation in Iraq is better than it was pre-2003 invasion. It is these wars we should be seeking to prevent, rather than simply allowing them to continue or even indirectly funding them.

Lastly, this deal is supposed to allow the global community access to verifiable information that Iran is behaving. That Iran is following the restrictions placed on its nuclear program. Yet, the IAEA has already stated that Iran does not have a history of doing this. We already know that the inspectors won’t be able to access military sites. So, what verifiable information will we have? Support for the Iraq War was built off false reports that Iraq was developing nuclear arms, this false information brought Congress to vote “yes” for the war and also dragged some other countries into a “coalition of the willing”. Today, support for this Iran deal is also being coaxed by false promises of “verifiable information”.

Look, those who genuinely oppose this deal does so because they do not want to see greater militarization of the Middle East. There is a reason that these negotiations have brought Israel and its adversaries amongst the Gulf countries closer together as part of the opposition, they are genuinely afraid of what the West’s acquiescence will lead to. It is the opinion of this writer that the deal will lead to more war in the Middle East, greater weaponization, and regret. A feeling of regret that comes from mistaken beliefs. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wrote in her memoir about her “Yes” vote, that “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote. And I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way“. Sadly, if Congress votes and approves this deal, we may be hearing these same exact sound bytes in ten years.

Compromise is good, but we need a tougher deal. We can hope that Iranian culture will change after this deal and will become less aggressive towards the rest of the region, but only the Western countries can maintain such hope. The Middle East cannot afford to rely on this. When the deal is announced and when Congress begins its deliberations, we must rally other activists to call Capitol Hill and demand a tougher deal. Do so for the sake of peace, at least some peace, in the Middle East.