What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal. Could the debate in Congress be less dignified if the members removed their shirts, painted themselves red or blue, and started screaming like the Cameron Crazies?
Jeffrey Lewis’ Foregin Policy piece starts out as a (wholly justified and spot on) criticism of Congress in general and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in particular…before it morphs into a lucid defense of the Iran nuclear treaty. If what you’re interested in is posturing and performing for whoever your base happens to be, knowing the facts and what’s actually contained in the treaty probably isn’t important to you. Unfortunately for those more interested in performance than substance, the devil really is in the details. While the treaty isn’t perfect- nothing short of disarming Iran would be for most Americans- no treaty negotiated with another sovereign nation ever is or will be; that’s the nature of diplomacy and negotiation.
Much of Congress appears to be incensed that the treaty doesn’t force the Iranians to bow to American demands and the threat of military retribution should they fail to meet those expectations. In the same way American politicians have to sell the treaty to their constituents, the Iranian government has a similar sales job at home. Hardliners in Tehran expect to be able to do what they want when they want and in whatever manner they choose to do it. Here, there are those who will never trust Iran, and so for them the only solution- besides complete and total Iranian capitulation- is war. The question, then, is simple: Do we continue to beat the drums of war…or do we find a way to negotiate our way to a middle ground each side can live with?
Too many in Congress would embark on a costly and bloody effort to impose our will before they’d even consider a negotiated peace. So much for learning the lessons of the Iraq War, eh?
Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”
Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites….
Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.
Even a cursory look at the proposed treaty reveals it to be something that actually does have some teeth to it. Should Iran refuse to cooperate and be declared in violation, there’s the “snap back” provision, which allows for reimposition of the economic sanctions previously in place. Opponents of the deal have done their own creative math, added up the time frames listed in the agreement, and come up with their “24 days notice” talking point. The truth is somewhat different, but it’s easier to argue a seemingly absurd feature of the treaty while completely ignoring the potential benefits. This is what you do when you rather commit American lives and resources to a war that may or may not achieve the desired goal of turning Iran into a compliant nation that obeys American dictates.
And you wonder why so much of Iran regards “The Great Satan” with hatred and distrust??
By now, we’ve probably all seen the commercials arguing that “We need a better deal!” The problem with this simplistic approach is that there’s no mention of what that “better deal” might look like, nor how they would cajole the Iranians into agreeing to it. What would seem a “better deal” to opponents of the treaty is very likely something that wouldn’t appear that way to Iranian negotiators. This treaty was negotiated over two years; if there was a “better deal,” don’t you think both sides would have been able to see their way clear to finding it?
Perhaps this really IS the best deal we could get.
One need not trust Iran implicitly (or at all) in order to support the treaty. From where I sit, this is an historic moment- if for no other reason than it prevents a needless, wasteful, protacted, and bloody war. After the immoral clusterf—k that was the Iraq War, you’d think politicians on Capitol Hill would be cautious about committing American blood and treasure to yet another war. Proving that those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it, the sabre-rattling emanating from Congress is as loud as it is distressing. Then again, I suppose you can do that when you’re advocating for sending the children and loved ones of others into harm’s way.
Clearly, this treaty is not a perfect document, but the nature of diplomacy lies in finding middle ground that ALL stakeholders can live with. Hardliners in Washington (and Tehran) didn’t get everything they wanted. That’s not a reason to go to war; that’s the way diplomacy works. You get the best deal you can, recognizing that your negotiating partner has their own interests and their own challenges at home. Both sides need to be able to sell it to their governments and, by extension, their people. Neither side has an easy sales job ahead of it…but there’s no other option, unless you consider war a reasonable and viable alternative.
From where I sit, the calculus is as sensible as it is obvious: Why NOT give peace a chance? Why not take this opportunity to step back from the brink and let Iran demonstrate whether or not they can be true to their commitments? Worst case, there will always be time for war if Iran proves perfidious…but I really have to wonder why so man in this country many have time for war, but none for peace and reconciliation?
