Sanctions in the Senate

Earlier this week, in the wake of announcements that Iran would hold up its end of the nuclear bargain and temporarily freeze most of its nuclear activity, the Senate was strongly considering passage of even tougher sanctions on Iran. Such sanctions would in all likelihood undermine the deal agreed upon by the US and Iran late last year, and make a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question even more difficult.

One might wonder why, after all the furor about avoiding "war" in a country that is in it's fourth year of an increasingly bloody civil war - Syria - we would take steps to undermine a diplomatic solution that would help us decrease the likelihood of war with Iran. The onus is on politicians who support tougher sanctions to explain how that course, rather than diplomacy, will lead to Iran giving up it's nuclear program.

War, of course, should be avoided at all costs, and perhaps there some credence to the line of thinking that if we just make things so miserable in Iran that the regime will crumble and the nuclear program will fall apart. But of course, a regime is falling apart in Syria right now and it's not pretty. A regime collapsed in Egypt and it's ugly there too. Same goes for Libya. Perhaps we think that we can make life so miserable in Iran that the regime will fold completely before it collapses, but the Ayatollah can probably convince a significant number of Iranians that life there sucks because of American pressure, not any wrongdoing on his part. What happens then? War? An increase in terrorism? Something else ugly?

Conversely, if we give diplomacy a shot, there is a chance that it will work. Sure, Iran could fail to hold up its end of the bargain, but we haven't take the military option off that table, and it's not as though our intelligence agencies are going to stop paying attention to the situation. What if the Iranian leadership is serious about giving up the nuclear program for sanction relief? Wasn't that the point of sanctions? Shouldn't we try that approach? If we enforced economic sanctions on Iran in order to force them to abandon their aspirations for nuclear weapons, and they are now offering to abandon those aspirations, doesn't it make sense to work with them rather than enforcing more sanctions?

Many say that the new Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that he can't be trusted, but for how long will this remain true of Iranian leadership? Certainly not indefinitely. Allies and enemies shift after all. We won our independence from that nation that is now our staunches ally on the planet, and about 250,000 Americans died fighting our now allies Japan and Germany during WWII, a war in which we were allied with the Soviet Union, that nation with which we anticipated nuclear war for decades. It wasn't that long ago that President Reagan was selling weapons to the Iranian regime we find so untrustworthy. Perhaps Iran isn't trustworthy yet, but we won't know until we give them a chance to prove they can be trusted. The deal that is currently in place is a great opportunity to test Iran's commitment to integrity since America and our allies are making no major concessions. If Iran tries something sneaky, we'll know, and not move forward with the deal.

The sanctions in the Senate - if passed - are a setback for diplomacy, and therefore, a step closer to war. While I still advocate for intervention in Syria, that situation is very different, and we should be in no hurry to be drawn into conflict with Iran. Diplomacy must be given a chance. I think if we take that route we will be better off in the short-term and the long-term. Proving that we can work with Iran - if indeed that is is what happens - will do more to bring them into the global community, and therefore more to lessen the chances of future conflict. This is the move that is in our best interests, and while I think the President deserves criticism for his inaction in Egypt and Syria, this deal with Iran is absolutely the right move.