I would reluctantly vote for the Iran treaty

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.