I think I would reluctantly vote for
the Iran treaty because:
1.
Our ability to apply pressure to
Iran has already been seriously compromised.
2.
We are not likely to benefit from
rejecting the treaty.
3.
In general, we need to be seen as a
responsible nation with which to negotiate. If our diplomats are not
permitted to represent us in such fashion, we will suffer in the long run.
4.
Sadly, I fear that some opponents
may be criticizing the treaty for political reasons rather than because they
believe it to be harmful. The extremism in our politics is poisonous,
contributing to fears of this type even if they may not be accurate.
I was impressed by the effectiveness
of the international boycott of Iran. It brought Iran to the bargaining
table. However, maintaining such boycotts is difficult. Simply
sitting at the bargaining table weakens an international boycott. As soon
as the prospect of lifting the boycott arises, some boycotters start
making plans for the discontinuation of the boycott. The other party will
try to create and leverage likely differences of opinion and interest among the
boycotters. For a negotiation of this type, preconditions are
appropriate, because of the risks of a splintered boycott and because of the
strong bargaining position we had going in.
It is important to have strong
negotiation skills and strong strategic insight. Unfortunately, even
though I obviously don't know all the details, I have reason to believe that
our current administration is weak in negotiation.
a)
I agree with President Obama that
diplomacy is better than force and that the previous administration used force
ill-advisedly. (I expressed my opposition to that force at that
time. It's a shame that so many people agree now, but did not stand up at
that time.) I believe most people have similar values, however our
President seems to have a Pollyannaish trust of foreign people (he seems
to have much less trust of people in the USA).
b)
He has been too strong in publically
denouncing our past positions and criticizing our country. I favor
admitting mistakes. Unfortunately, President Obama admits mistakes that others
in the USA have made, but not mistakes that he has made. He has
caused our adversaries to think we lack resolve militarily and also in tough
negotiations.
c)
I voted for President Obama the first
time he ran. Being willing to meet with the Ayatollah without
preconditions might be appropriate, under some circumstances. But I was
concerned at the time that continually campaigning on such a position weakened
his future bargaining position with Iran. It helped to create the
impression that President Obama might be more committed to reaching
an accord than to insist on appropriate positions. Perception is not
reality, but it influences reality. His approach is very different from
"speak softly but carry a big stick".
d)
Similarly, announcing a future fixed
date of withdrawal (from Iraq) relinquishes control of developments to your
enemies.
e)
I was appalled when the
administration rejected Mubarak's offer to plan a controlled transition of
power in Egypt, insisting instead on an abrupt change.
f)
President Obama has repeatedly
signaled to the Arab world that the USA support for Israel is flagging. I
suspect his rhetoric encouraged the Palestinians to seek full UN
membership in 2011 and that the Palestinians were surprised when the USA opposed
them.
If I was the President, I don't
think I would have accepted the Iran deal for the following reasons.
i.
The boycott seemed to be
effective. I might have taken steps to buttress the boycott against
an inadequate Iranian offer or may have required pre-conditions in this
circumstance.
ii.
There was an international agreement
that the spread of nuclear weapons was unacceptable. The Iran deal seems
to have negotiated that position away, for a mere 10 to 15 year delay. (I
understand that there is hope that we can accomplish more in negotiating with
Iran in the next 10 to 15 years, but I am not optimistic.) We run the
risk of encouraging nations to develop nuclear capability so that they can
persuade other countries to give them concessions to alter their path.
iii.
The agreement may allow Iran to
delay inspections sufficiently long to avoid detection of cheating. It
appears as though we'll have a series of problematic exchanges with them.
Many experts say that the agreement has adequate teeth. Obviously, they
know more about it than I do, but my experience is that people get hopeful and
that there are political incentives for them to look at the optimistic
side. Hopefully, my skepticism is misplaced.
iv.
The agreement does not seem to put
any limits on what Iran can do outside its borders.
v.
We are providing substantial
economic support for a lot of international mischief. That mischief will
have long-term consequences and all we got in return was a 10-year delay.
I'm sorry but in my view, 10 years is a very short period of time.
vi.
The proponents are saying the
alternative is war. I'm not sure that is true, but the bigger issue
may be that the agreement may lead to more confrontations and
military spending throughout the Mideast.
