Here are a few thoughts on the interim agreement with Iran that was announced over the weekend. While my main thought is pretty much summarized in the title of this post, let me expand on it a little.
First, any comments I may have on Iran are subject to what I said back on March 17: “Iran Will Get Nuclear Weapons (If They Want Them) – In Spite of What President Obama Says”. That is what happened with North Korea. They developed nuclear weapons in spite of President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s efforts to stop them – because they wanted them.
The question is whether Iran really wants nuclear weapons. Part of the answer to that question is the cost of getting them. The cost includes the money spent on developing nuclear weapons that could otherwise be spent on other things. It also includes the costs that the sanctions are imposing on the Iranian economy.
The Obama administration has talked about how sanctions have gotten Iran to negotiate, trying to show the success of their policies and why we should trust the Administration as the negotiations proceed. That argument would be more convincing if it was the Obama administration who had been pushing for tougher sanctions, instead of being forced into them by Congress (people like Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, among others).
It is also hard to credit the Administration’s statements that it will re-impose sanctions if the new talks fail to reach a satisfactory conclusion, when the Administration frequently opposed tougher sanctions that Congress wanted to impose on the ground that they would interfere with talks. Also, as I said here, once we start to ease back on sanctions, it is not going to be easy to ratchet them back up.
On the other hand, maybe the sanctions have caused enough pain for Iran that Iran is willing to agree to some meaningful limits on its nuclear program in order to end the sanctions. Maybe Iran feels it can get what nuclear weapons would give it, in terms of regional power, security vis-à-vis the United States, etc., some other way. Some people have compared the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, to Mikhail Gorbachev. I do not believe the comparison is apt. Mikhail Gorbachev was the top person in the Soviet Union. President Rouhani is not the top person in Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is. A more moderate president, like President Rouhani may be, might help. A change of view by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is more important.
My view is that we might as well see what we can get through negotiations because I do not think President Obama would ultimately follow through on the redline he set for Iran. Following through on redlines is not one of the Obama administrations strong suits.* The Administration likes to claim that the redline President Obama set on Syria’s use of chemical weapons was a success. No, it wasn’t. Syria may be giving up its chemical weapons, but Basher al-Assad is staying in power and is continuing to kill thousands and thousands of Syrians. The purpose of Syria’s chemical weapons was to help keep Assad in power. They have done that. If getting rid of them now further helps him stay in power, then they are continuing to serve their purpose.
Many people I respect are complaining about the interim agreement with Iran. (For example, here and here.) I understand their concerns. Another administration might be able to do something else; another administration might be able to follow through on what these people are suggesting. This one cannot. What they are doing is about all they can do. Will it be enough? I don’t know, but we should hope so. Because they aren’t going to do anything more.
--------
* Clearly stating redlines isn’t one of their strong suits, either. Compare the redline that President George H.W. Bush set for Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990: “This will not stand.” with President Obama’s redline on Syria’s use of chemical weapons:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Not what you would call a model of clarity and precision.
Comments