But What if Iran...?

In the aftermath of the temporary accord to limit Iran's nuclear program, pundits everywhere have been grumbling about seeming soft and selling out our allies - as though Saudi Arabi, home of the world's most militant brand of Sunni Islam and country of origin of many of the 9/11 attackers is more than nominally our ally, more like our favorite petro-monarchy. This makes it more likely that Iran will get a bomb, critics scream! We should be tightening sanctions! Growl, grumble, etc.

Sure, it is possible that Iran won't live up to its side of the bargain. Israeli war-mongerer - excuse me, Prime Minister - Benjamin Netanyahu likes to call Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a wolf in sheep's clothing, and maybe he is right. But couldn't Rouhani actually be a sheep? Are we really going to let our foreign policy be dictated by the stereotype that all Iranians are cut in the mold of our old nemesis Khomeini, that these people are born with an innate hatred of America? I certainly hope not...

As I pointed out in my last post, the point of sanctions was to force Iran to the bargaining table, so now that Iran is willing to bargain, haven't the sanctions proven to be successful? If Iran reneges on its end of said bargain, we can always reinstate the sanctions, and - here's the kicker - we haven't taken the ultimate option off the table. Let's say Iran totally screws us over - unlikely in my opinion - and races towards a bomb. Do we really think America and Israeli intelligence agencies are going to stop paying attention and not notice? Do we really think if it comes to that we can bomb those nuclear facilities into oblivion?

There are reasons to doubt Iran's resolve, but I see very few reasons to be critical of the use of diplomacy here - in contrast to that, I am still in favor of some type of intervention to stop the bloodshed in Syria. We should always seek to avoid conflict, and negotiating with Iran is easily the right decision. It's worth bearing in mind that allies and enemies are not forever. Remember when Soviet and American soldiers shook hands in Germany in 1945? Remember when the US armed Iraqis to fight Iranians and Afghans to fight those previously friendly Soviets (tangental point of irony: the original release of Rambo III was dedicated to the "brave Mujahideen fighters" also known as the Taliban). The point here is that we don't need to base on our interactions with today's Iranian government on the specter of Khomeini and the 1979 embassy takeover.

The question but what if Iran doesn't comply needs to be asked with a critical eye, but we must also ask ourselves a number of other important questions such as: what is our end goal; what were the point of sanctions; and do we really want to have to bomb Iran? I posit that the answers, in order, are: to bring Iran into the global community; to force Iran to bargain away its ability to build nuclear missiles; and simply, no. The good news is that if it comes to it, we still maintain the ability to blast away at nuclear sites. I'd like to keep that as plan C or D or H or whatever plan it is and give diplomacy a chance to work out.

This accord may not bring the peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear standoff that we hope for, but it also MAY bring the peaceful resolution for which we hope. The US and Israel are not going to let Iran get nukes. Right now, I think this is the best bet for achieving that end, and I think it also does far more to reintegrate Iran into the global community ensuring peace and stability rather than confrontation and standoff.