The Washington Post suggests that “Chuck Schumer’s opposition to Iran deal may bring other Democrats with him”. Well, let’s see about that. It may well be that Schumer is placating local constituencies while not trying to pull Democrats with him: “Schumer indicated that he would not actively encourage others to vote against the Iran deal.” That’s what that means: I’ll let it pass, but I can’t do this one.
Certainly our Senators Warren and Markey should consider this very carefully in deciding whom to support for party leader in the Senate. Schumer’s support of Wall Street interests and his freelancing on this critical issue should make them look for better alternatives.
Apart from such rather typical politicking, I truly do not understand the opposition to the Iran deal, except as a continuation of zero-sum partisan politics. The GOP’s opposition is predictable, of a piece with health care hysteria, cap-and-trade hysteria, Benghazi, etc.
Read Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with John Kerry, even in spite of Goldberg’s outrageous characterizations of Kerry’s remarks (“he has encouraged scapegoating of the Jewish state” — ridiculous). And read Max Fisher’s breakdown of the arguments against the deal:
Delaying Iran’s nuclear program for 10 years via diplomacy is bad, whereas delaying it for two years via war is good. What does that tell you?
For Israel, supporters of Israel, you seem to have these choices:
- No deal, in which Iran continues on its path to get nukes in short order (three months?) but it remains economically paralyzed and isolated;
- This deal, which delays Iran for at least 10 years, apparently; and according to Kerry, much longer than that;
- War! which sets Iran back a couple of years, but with immense cost of human lives, money, and another generation of hostility. Doesn’t exactly solve any of your problems, and creates countless new ones.
Opponents of the deal objectively prefer 1. or 3.; that is, their position naturally leads to those consequences:
- #1: With a deal, Iran may well get more money with which to fund international terror and mischief, Hezbollah and Assad, not to mention the egregious Shiite militias in Iraq, which we’re supposed to be partnering with to fight ISIS. Without a deal, Iran remains economically crippled, but has nukes. But so does Israel, and so do we, so can it actually use them? So this is actually a plausible calculation. On the other hand, Nuclear Iran has its obvious dangers, particularly if you don’t believe in a “rational actor” Ayatollah.
- #3 is also plausible because the prospect of war gives those in particular ideological corners the opportunity to be Big Strong Men. War is its own justification, for many; it’s just intrinsically awesome and attractive as a Thing To Do. This has currency especially in American right-wing politics. We can see such talk for what it is, and put into practice, the consequences are rather fresh in the minds of most Americans.If you thought that war would actually do a better job of preventing Iran from getting a bomb, this view would at least have some merit. Is this case plausible? Or does a deal with an inspection regime — and huge economic incentives to comply — do a better job?
There is no question that the Iran deal involves some very tough calculations, particularly as regards Iran’s influence regionally. But remember that as Iran opens up economically and culturally, it also becomes subject to outside influences, including ours, and the need to maintain the web of international trade.
It’s not a slam dunk, but I cannot see how those most vocally opposed to the deal– particularly those interested in Israel’s safety — are better off without a deal.
Peter Porcupine says
Number two assumes there is a chance in he’ll that they will keep the treaty conditions instead of just violating them with an improved economy.
Charley on the MTA says
How strong those conditions are, whether inspections are adequate. Kerry makes a strong case; how plausible are the arguments for tougher ones?
And then you’re talking about the conditions of a deal, not whether a deal itself is a good or bad thing.
Charley on the MTA says
… and it is a tiny number of people who are actually qualified and capable of saying whether an inspections regime is adequate to prevent development of nuclear weapons. We had Energy Sec. Ernest Moniz — who is in fact a nuclear physicist — working intensely on the negotiations.
Here’s Kerry:
I can’t imagine Kerry would be saying this without Moniz’s input at every stage.
Sounds like this needs another post.
jconway says
Your framing of this issue is on point Charley, as I did a few months ago, the choices can be reduced to
1) stay the course, Iran with a bomb
2, pass the deal, Iran without a bonk for ten years with no war
3) War, with unpredictable consequences
And I would argue #1 leads to #3, possibly via a unilateral Israeli strike without US support, but if we reject this deal now, the p5+1 sanctions end anyway and the U.S. sanctions would then have as much of an impact as our unsuccessful embargo on Cuba. So they get the influx of cash without verification or inspections, and the hardliners get to say the West is interested in war, making them ramp up the timetable for nuclear weaponization. And that will lead to war.
Anyone concerned about security in the region, Israeli security, and Americn security should support this deal. The alternative is tolerating an Iranian bomb or a war that would further destabilize the region, empower ISIS, and may end with an Iranian bomb anyway.
Schumer’s decision is irresponsible policy and short term politics that demonstrates he is incapable of being the Democratic leader.
David says
Could be the best typo in BMG’s ten-year history. 😀
SomervilleTom says
I think that if the leaders of Iran had MANY bonks, the entire issue would be much easier to resolve.
“Bonks, not bombs”.
Christopher says
First, what is this illusive “better deal” the opponents keep talking about? I might have held out for our hostages, but other than that those who say we want a better deal have not offered specifics and don’t seem to understand that a realistic deal is one all sides agree to. I suppose since negotiation and compromise are dirty words to the GOP in domestic politics it logically follows that they don’t seem to value it diplomatically either:(
Second, why can’t Iran get the bomb? I can understand on the merits our preferring that a country we don’t trust not have it, but as a nuclear power ourselves what right do we have to tell another sovereign nation they can’t develop one?
Why would anyone affirmatively want war? The other day Sen. Graham didn’t even seem to pretend it would be the last resort. He was grilling someone at a hearing (Sec. Kerry? – I forget) about who would win a war between the US and Iran. The witnessed acknowledged it would be us so Graham’s attitude seemed to be if we can beat them in a war why bother with peace.
drikeo says
For me, the absolute best part of this deal is lifting the sanctions on Iran. We can only hope it pumps as much money into the Iranian economy as opponents are projecting. The best way to create rational, moderate actors on the international stage is to give them nice things. Tends to promote things like tolerance and stability.
maxdaddy says
Here in Massachusetts we should not be worrying about how Sen. Schumer will vote on the Iran deal. He supported the Iraq war, so his opposition to the Iran deal can be no surprise, even entirely apart from his New York state concerns about voter blowback (though I’d bet New Yorkers, and Jewish New Yorkers, support the Iran deal) or campaign contribution impacts, whether for his upcoming Senate race or as a major Democratic rainmaker.
THE QUESTION IS WHERE IS ED MARKEY? He found time recently to opine at great length in BMG about the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan rule, and manages rather comically to inflate CPP’s middling importance. But so far we just have bobbing and weaving on Iran, with menacing remarks about whether the IAEA is up to the job, but no coherent explanation of what intelligent alternative there is, and no evident interest in the damage, to the leader of his party and to the diplomatic position of the United States, of the nuclear deal’s disapproval.
It’s time to turn up the heat under the gentleman: I suspect a strong majority of his MA supporters supports the Iran deal even though they recognize it may not be perfect. That’s the problem with diplomacy: you cannot just dictate desired outcomes, save, perhaps, after defeating a party in war. Or is that where Markey is really headed? One would think someone who makes so much out of his arms control bona fides would listen to the overwhelming consensus of the American arms control community in support of the Iran deal. Or understand that even war will not forestall an Iranian bomb–indeed, war is the one outcome virtually sure to make an Iranian bomb inevitable.
There’s no point, in discussing the Iran deal, getting into all the other issues the US, or Israel, might have with Iran. We might never be friends. But then again one does not arrive at arrangements like the Iran nuclear deal with friends. (Note Israel’s nuclear weapons, or its not being a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, are wholly off the table.) The key question, for a sitting US senator, is whether this deal is in the security interests of the United States. But there is another important question since this discussion has become so politicized. Is Ed Markey going to support his own president in what has become a bitter political fight, or is he just Binjamin Netanyahu’s stooge? My bet is BMG readers overwhelmingly support this deal. They should let Ed Markey know this loud and clear.