What's the Alternative to Obama's Iran Deal?
Benjamin Netanyahu insists that opposing Thursdays framework nuclear deal with Iran doesnt mean he wants war. Theres a third alternative, the Israeli prime minister told CNN on Sunday, and that is standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until you get a better deal.
There are three problems with this argument. The first is that even some of Netanyahus own ideological allies dont buy it. Netanyahu and many Republican politiciansknowing that the American public doesnt want warinsist that theres a diplomatic alternative to the current deal. But over the years, key conservative foreign-policy experts, have said exactly the opposite. Eliot Cohen, a former Bush administration official who teaches at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has written that, The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time. Understandably, the U.S. government has hoped for a middle course of sanctions, negotiations and bargaining that would remove the problem without the ugly consequences. This is self-delusion. According to Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, The only credible option for significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program would be a bombing campaign. The Weekly Standards Bill Kristol has argued that, Its long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understandsforce.
We can strike at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken them. And we can hit the regimes nuclear weapons program, and set it back. And over the last month alone, two other prominent hawks, John Bolton and Joshua Muravchik, have penned op-eds entitled, To Stop Irans Bomb, Bomb Iran and War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option. Netanyahu may sincerely believe that theres a preferable diplomatic alternative to last weeks deal. But its telling that for years now, many on his ideological side have disagreed.
The second problem with Netanyahus argument is that its based on bizarre assumptions about Iranian politics. According to Netanyahu, if the United States walks away from the current deal, Irans desperation to end global sanctions will lead it to scrap its nuclear program almost entirely. But Irans nuclear program is decades old and enjoys broad public support. Even Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leader of the reformist Green Movement, declared in 2009 that if elected, we will not abandon the great achievements of Iranian scientists. I too will not suspend uranium enrichment.
Its true that one wing of the current Iranian regime, led by President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, will accept substantial limits on Irans nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions. But Rouhanis hardline opponents, who benefit politically and economically from the sanctions, fiercely oppose such a deal. Netanyahu thinks a more aggressive American posture, coupled with a demand for near-complete Iranian capitulation, will make Tehran accept terms that today not even Iranian doves accept. To grasp how absurd that it is, just reverse the lens. How would more aggressive Iranian behavior, coupled with a demand for near-complete American capitulation, affect the debate in Washington? Would it turn Tom Cotton into Noam Chomsky? Of course not. It would empower those Americans who most oppose a deal already.
more
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/alternatives-obama-iran-nuclear-deal-israel/389751/