Key Democrats are so far withholding support for the White House’s Iran deal, worried that the plan would undermine national security, threaten Israel and too easily let Tehran escape punishing economic sanctions. Many of them will be in office beyond the end of Obama’s term, so an affirmative vote means they will effectively own the deal when they face voters again. That means they could pay a dear price politically if the accord fails to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proves to be a failure.
Politico
Any attempt to solve a crisis using diplomacy, is not only worthwhile, but should always be the first and preferable resource to solve conflicts. With this premise in mind the diplomatic effort designed by Obama to try to come to an agreement with Iran should have been supported by all. In this particular predicament we were dealing with a country ruled by a theocracy whose main rhetoric and stated goal was to eliminate our ally Israel, and destroy America. In order to understand the gravity of the situation, they were known sponsors of terrorism, both in the Middle East and abroad with an intention to unite the Shiite governments and establish a new Persian Empire.
Prior US governments tried unsuccessfully to deal with this dangerous situation by threatening war, or tough economic sanctions, mostly ineffective, only delaying the unavoidable conflict in view of the fact that Iran was on a pathway to become a nuclear nation. So the case becomes clear. There could only be two results on a diplomatic solution, one accepting the fact that Iran would become a nuclear nation, try to limit their expansionist ambitions, and hope that by allowing other nations in the area to acquire these destructive weapons, MAD (mutual assured destruction) would avoid a nuclear conflict. A naïve and perilous premise, to say the least.
A second one would be to stop them from becoming nuclear by using every method available to us including war, in order to achieve the objective. Thus the gravity and importance of these negotiations. The most vital thing to do when sitting in a table with an opponent that is well known for its duplicity and aggressiveness is to turn up in a position of strength, always keeping all your cards tight and concealed. It is not as important to “blink” as to who does it first, and a wise negotiator never hesitates to leave the table even if it might be an undesirable option.
It is not what you want, it is to try to convince the other party that you want “more”, and will spare no cost in achieving your desires. A risky game indeed, but the only way to stop a weaker adversary that aims to become stronger. Even without knowledge of the details of the proposed deal, we know that this administration might be flowing with good intentions, but do not know how to negotiate. Before the talks started Obama was hesitant to mention a military solution. Nobody wanted that, but the fact remains that if our country desired it, it was more than capable of achieving this, and the leaders of Iran knew it, additionally being from a culture that understands and fears strength.
Very early in the meetings the promise made to the American people of an objective of “stopping” the nuclear program changed to “delaying”, and from what has been made public the final agreement is “continuing”, delaying only the making of a bomb. The talks were allowed to ignore frequent stated time deadlines, not only favoring Iran’s position, but making everyone aware that our country wanted a solution regardless of the “bottom line”, giving up our tough stance to a “weaker” nation, in summary playing into their hands.
As far as we know Iran will keep its facilities running, will not abide with the 24/7 inspections that our President promised, instead only receiving “requests” that can be denied and appealed de facto changing the 24 hour promise to 24 days. Some military complexes will avoid inspection, Iran will in a few years be able to continue their conventional arms and armed missiles purchases, including intercontinental, have sanctions lifted and receive billions of dollars that surely will be used to continue their sponsoring of terrorists groups and aggression in the region.
If order to defend this pact, we would have to understand that the only favorable achievement was a delay of the potential nuclear crisis for a period of 10 to 15 years, basically leaving this problem to the next generations. It also counts on Iran full compliance, something they never have done in the past, and a new sophisticated surveillance program, never tested, in lieu of eyes and ears in the ground. A tall order indeed! The administration calls this agreement historic, and this is true, but chances are that it will be seen as the worst accord ever made in our history. And for those hoping that a reversal might be attained by the Congress, even in the unlikely event of having votes to override a veto, the UN will be on board and the coalition presently formed will not be available to pursue further sanctions. A reversal will only be possible with a new president using its executive order and a new Congress agreeing. This is why elections are held.
Fernando J. Milanes, MD
