Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Why Obama Thinks He Can’t Get a Better Iran Deal

If he did nothing else, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with his speech to a joint session of Congress, started a national conversation on the merits, or lack thereof, of a potential nuclear deal with Iran. Here are a few thoughts, after several days of intense, back and forth debate.

Thought No. 1: The defenders of the nuclear deal claim that Iranian compliance could be verified and that a one-year heads-up about Iranian non-compliance would be plenty of time for a robust American response. After all, we have considerable forces pre-positioned in the Persian Gulf region, ready to strike Iran if need be. However, I remain skeptical that either (a) the U.S. would necessarily detect a violation or (b) that if we did detect it, that we would do anything about it.

The U.S. intelligence community has a terrible track record of detecting nuclear work in other countries. We were caught off guard by the first Soviet nuclear test in 1949, the first Indian test in 1974, the first Pakistani test in 1998, the first North Korean test in 2006. Likewise, we were surprised by the extent of the Iraqi nuclear program in 1992.

Is there cause to hope that we would be better informed about the Iranian program? Only if we get truly intrusive inspection that allows international monitors to roam the country at will with no need to announce visits in advance. I am skeptical whether the mullahs will agree to that. The 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea shows how easily a state can cheat on a nuclear accord: The North agreed to shut down a plutonium reactor at Yongbyon but proceeded with the secret enrichment of uranium.

And even if we find out about Iranian nuclear cheating, what would we do about it? The Russians have been cheating on the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement since at least 2007 but the Obama administration hesitated to publicize their breach, much less to do anything about it. Is there any reason to believe we would be more willing to go to war with Iran in a few years’ time than we are today?

Thought No. 2: While a nuclear agreement may or may not retard the Iranian development of an atomic bomb, it will have one undoubted consequence: it will provide the Iranian government with a lot more money by lifting or at least relaxing sanctions. Already, just by agreeing to talk to the U.S., Iran has received an estimated $11.9 billion in sanctions relief. That’s a lot of money that Iran can use to create considerable mischief. Given that the U.S. estimates that Iran provides $100 million to $200 million a year to Hezbollah, that’s enough funding right there to fund Hezbollah until the mid-21st century. It’s also money that can be used to fund Iranian-supported terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and other countries.

And it’s only a drop in the (oil) barrel that will fill up with cash if Iran signs a long-term nuclear deal. Iran is already at a peak of its regional power, and its power will only grow with all this money at its disposal. That will have catastrophic consequences for regional security because the stronger Iran gets, the more that Sunnis will take matters into their own hands. Saudi Arabia has the capability to acquire nuclear weapons in short order from Pakistan. It, and other Gulf states, will also likely wind up supporting the Al-Nusra Front, ISIS, and other Sunni terrorist groups as a bulwark against Iranian influence. Thus by helping Iran, we are also indirectly helping ISIS.

Thought No. 3: Beyond all these problems, the value of any agreement is vitiated if it includes a ten-year expiration date and if it allows Iran to keep tens of thousands of centrifuges intact–as appears to be the case if press leaks are to believed. This would not end the Iranian program and not even pause it: at most it might delay the moment when Iran goes from a nuclear-capable state to a state in possession of actual nukes. And it will ensure that when Iran does decide to produce nukes, it will have a lot of them, not just one or two.

It’s hard to know why the Obama administration thinks it’s OK to grant Iran the “right” to field nuclear weapons in 2025, aside from the obvious fact that Obama will no longer be in office and thus can’t be blamed for the outcome. Perhaps the White House hopes that, Ayatollah Khamenei presumably having died by then (there are reports he has prostate cancer), the Iranian regime might have reformed itself to become one that we can more easily live with. But hope isn’t a policy (except for this White House). If the U.S. does agree to this ten-year deal, it would be imperative to do what we could during this period to bring about peaceful regime change in Iran–a democratic Iran with a bomb would be a lot less threatening than a jihadist Iran with a bomb. But there is scant sign that the Obama administration is thinking along those lines. And even if it were, the U.S. ability to push regime change, never that strong to begin with, would be further weakened by the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Tehran which would be seen by Iranian dissidents (as well as by the entire region) as conferring Washington’s seal of approval on the existing regime.

Thought No. 4: The most common rebuttal from the administration and its defenders, against those who criticize the projected accord, is that critics offer no real alternative. Netanyahu’s claim that the alternative is a better deal is dismissed on the grounds that no better deal is possible. That may be true in the current atmosphere, with the White House patently telegraphing its eagerness to achieve a deal at all costs and having lost all leverage when it allowed the “red line” in Syria to be crossed with impunity. But what if the U.S. could present Iran with a credible threat of military action? Recall that the only time in recent decades when Iran interrupted its nuclear program was in 2003, because the mullahs were afraid that after the fall of Saddam Hussein, they would be next in the American military’s cross hairs. But when the U.S. got bogged down in Iraq, the Iranian leaders realized they had nothing to fear from George W. Bush, and of course now they have even less to fear from Barack Obama, who is obviously determined to start no new wars on his watch.

If there is one thing that could nudge Iran toward a serious agreement, it would be fear of whoever is in the White House. Recall how Eisenhower helped to end the Korean War in 1953, and a year later to end the French Indochina War on relatively favorable terms to the West, by dropping broad hints that he was contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. Likewise Nixon helped to achieve a peace accord in Vietnam by bombing North Vietnam with B-52s over Christmas 1952. He later said that it helped to be perceived as a “madman” who is capable of anything. And Ronald Reagan helped to revive arms control with the Soviet Union by projecting the image of a gun-toting cowboy. Alas there is no president of the last half century, with the possible exception of Jimmy Carter, who projects a weaker image than Obama. That is why he is not going to get a deal with Iran on any terms that should be acceptable to the U.S. or our allies.



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »


7 Responses to “Why Obama Thinks He Can’t Get a Better Iran Deal”

  1. ANDREW GOTTLIEB says:

    Beautifully written, well-argued. Minor typo 1952 should be 1972. Kol Ha-Kavod!

  2. F JAY HOENEMEYER says:

    It is my contention and the contention of others( Rick Perry for one ) that any deal that O strikes , absent ratification in the Senate , is a deal which ends with his presidency . A mere scrap of paper if you will . If one, the next president say , were serious about preventing the mullahs and the IRG from acquiring nuclear weapons , one would work towards the only possible solution , regime change . Squeeze Iran and its people until the pips squeak . A blockade of everything other than basic food stuffs and fuels would get part of the way there. Then a secondary boycott of any of Iran’s trading partners : your choice Mercedes and BNP , you can do business in Tehran or the USA . Or you can go trust and try try and try but never verify , the deal on the table , and wait for the Far Satan to have a container bomb detonate in Long Beach harbor , because containment and the David Koresh wing of islam are mutually exclusive .

  3. DRENNAN LINDSAY says:

    Marc Thiessen said recently that Obama’s most important goal was to not be a “war president.’ The frightening thing is that he seems to have no sense of consequences.

    The fallout from his efforts keeps showing up. Illegal immigrants that he welcomed have brought deadly diseases that are killing kids. Cutting back on Medicaid payments to doctors means Medicaid patients can’t find a doctor who will see them and turn to the emergency rooms –increasing costs. Broadcasting his strategy and timing in advance means the effort doesn’t work.

    Trading Taliban commanders for a deserter, means increased Taliban activity, ignoring ISIS means they are successfully recruiting in Afghanistan. Insisting on much more restricted rules of engagement for American soldiers means that far more are killed under Obama than under Bush. Pretending that al Qaeda was decimated and no longer of any importance means that al Qaeda has grown and spread. Some strategy.

  4. MARC SALZBERGER says:

    Boot omits how the Iranians released our 52 hostages the moment Ronald Reagan entered the White House, and how his Star War program, which so many mocked as science fiction foolishness, helped convince Gorbachev to drop his pants.

    Still, it may be a mistake to dismiss President Obama as a weak leader, in the category of Jimmy Carter. Carter wanted the US to succeed, and failed trying. That Obama’s real goals and legacy hopes are not being realized by his foreign policies is not so clear. Clear is that he shifted our focus from Iraq, the dumb war,where we now realize we had vital interest, to Afghanistan, the smart and necessary war, which we are now washing out hand of because we have no serious interests there.

    We keep forgetting that Barack Obama was for decades the protégé of Jeremiah Wright, the admirer of Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn, the friend of Palestinian nationalists, the product of New Hyde Park. They and their world view formed BHO. Did America’s traditional values and national interests, her friends and allies, then suddenly become his own?

    First thing Churchill’s bust left the Oval Office.

    Granted Obama also had Jewish friends, and he made a point of displaying them. They served to get him elected. Not so his Wright, Weathermen and Palestinian connections; he kept those in the shadows. But are they really not an enduring influence that explains the president’s actions, from his sabotage of our Iraq victory, to his current betrayal of Israel and our Arab allies.

    • MARC SALZBERGER says:

      Correction: I meant to say, in the last sentence of my 3rd paragraph –

      Did America’s traditional values and national interests, her friends and allies, then suddenly, on his election on Nov 2008, become his own?

  5. E B TRAININ says:

    It is truly amazing that obama doesnt understand all of this but what can we expect from a street organizer!

  6. MANUEL LAZEROV says:

    This is not a matter of getting a good deal with Iran. It is about creating a de facto alliance with Iran, or pivot to Iran.

    This is precisely why the administration is so upset with Netanyahu’s speech before Congress and the letter from forty seven US senators to Iran. Americans do not want an alliance with Iran, which has been responsible for so many American deaths, worldwide terrorism, paving the way for Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, and creating conditions for nuclear proliferation in the region.




Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This

Share This

Share this post with your friends!

Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.