While we were on vacation, the debate on the nuclear agreement with Iran picked up steam. Therefore, in one sense, this post is a little late. However, since any vote in Congress will not come until September, it is still timely. So, here are my thoughts on the agreement with Iran – and the debate about it.
1. President Obama’s argument that it is either his agreement or “some sort of war” is just not true. There are other options, and there might have been even more if the Administration had done a better job of negotiating, both with the Iranians and with the other parties to the agreement. Trying to sell the agreement on the basis of this document or “some sort of war” is more an indication of the difficulty the President has in trying to convince people who disagree with him than the reality of the situation.
2. “Some sort of war”? What is the President talking about? What does this even mean? For somebody who is said to be a great speechmaker, “some sort of war” is really inarticulate.
3. Saying that a more stringent agreement could not have been negotiated because (i) Iran would not have agreed and (ii) the international sanctions would not have held for much longer is an interesting argument for somebody who has based his career on opposing the use of force against Iraq and, at least implicitly, continuing the sanctions against Iraq. Why would we have been able to maintain the sanctions against Iraq in 2003, when we couldn’t maintain them against Iran today?
5. I can predict now that Iran will not breach the agreement during President Obama’s remaining time in office. Or let me rephrase that: President Obama, and his administration, is so invested in this agreement, that it will take the grossest of violations for President Obama to say Iran has breached the agreement. Because if Iran breaches this agreement, President Obama will have failed – and he doesn’t want that.
6. Here is what President Obama said about the possibility of using force if Iran breaches the agreement:
“There are times when force is necessary and if Iran does not abide by this deal it’s possible we don’t have an alternative.”
Look at the last half of that sentence: “it’s possible we don’t have an alternative.” That is so weak. And an indication that Iran doesn’t need to worry about President Obama using force in case of a breach of the agreement, which, in any case, as I said above, the President would be loath to acknowledge.
7. The agreement with Iran is almost certainly going to be approved by Congress. Or rather, more appropriately, it will not be disapproved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. Therefore, the debate over the agreement will be more useful with respect to identifying the weaknesses in the agreement and how Iran is likely to breach it than determining whether the agreement is a good one or not.
8. The question is then: What next? President Obama seems to have the hope that this agreement will bring change in Iran. There are two views of this idea. One view remembers Neville Chamberlain saying that his agreement with Adolf Hitler would bring “peace for our time” and that “[t]he settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem ... is ... the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.” The other is that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan thought Mikhail Gorbachev was a man "we can do business" with. The one comment I would make in this regard is that Prime Minister Thatcher and President Reagan met with Mr. Gorbachev. President Obama has merely written letters to Ayatollah Khamenei.
9. If you believe that we should at least prepare for Iran to continue to act as it has acted for the last four decades, then I think my comments of March 14, 2015 (“A Few More Thoughts on Iran: Why the Letter by 47 Republican Senators Was a Bad Idea – And What We Need To Do Now”) and of April 10, 2015 (“The Iran Nuclear ‘Agreement’”), are still basically right. Iran will get nuclear weapons whenever it wants to get them. We are now, or very soon will be, in the “Iran has a bomb” era (or the functional equivalent of it). Therefore, we need to start planning for that era now. Here are some things we should be doing (I mentioned some of these on March 14):
- Ramp up our own missile defense program. Iran will be working on its ballistic missile program and the restrictions on it come off in eight years. A good missile defense program needs that much time.
- Figure out how we are going to keep the Straits of Hormuz open if Iran wants to close them.
- Plan for new sanctions to take effect if Iran breaches the agreement – and work with other countries to make sure the sanctions are as comprehensive and as effective as possible.
- Figure out how we are going to help our friends defend themselves against an Iran with a lot more money.
The common denominator of all of these actions is U.S. leadership. We can’t wait for other countries to do something. We can’t lead from behind. Certainly, we need to consult with other countries and work with them, but mostly we mostly need to lead, both in planning and in action. I understand that this may not happen during the next 17 months. (See #5 and #7 above.) But it will be a top priority for our next president, whoever he or she is, come January 20, 2017.
Comments