In recent weeks, as details of a nuclear deal between the West and Iran leak out, an increasing number of writers and analysts have expressed concern about the assumptions underpinning the emerging deal. Among the critics are a number who have, in the past, been aligned with the Obama administration. In addition to questioning whether the negotiations will effectively keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, these critics also wonder whether the diplomacy involved in arriving at an agreement would, in the words of President Barack Obama, help moderate Iran to become a “very successful regional power.”
Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars wrote in January, “[I]f the administration is too eager for an agreement, it will find itself…with an emboldened Iran…untransformed, unrepentant, and in a stronger … position to challenge U.S. interests in a turbulent Middle East.” In December former Special Advisor to the Obama administration Dennis Ross recommended a new strategy that will “focus on isolating Iran in its neighborhood and undermining its clients” to “raise the price to Tehran of its objectionable policies.”
Along these lines Armin Rosen wrote last week that one part of the agreement that has yet to emerge is whether or not it will address Iran’s worldwide support for terrorism. Reinforcing that concern, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin have reported that, according to administration officials, any deal will be “just an arms control agreement” that should be judged “on the technical aspects only, not on whether the deal will spur Iranian reform.”
A number of analysts see the administration’s lack of concern about Iran’s destabilizing influence in the Middle East as part of a tacit partnership with Iran. Analyst Tony Badran of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies maintains that the agreement with Iran is part of a broader “de facto condominium between the US and Iran.” He quotes Yaakov Amidror, former National Security Advisor of Israel, who wrote last week that several people had told him during a recent trip to Washington, D.C. that officials in the State Department believed that a nuclear agreement with Iran would lead to regional stability and a “special relationship with Iran.” Lee Smith takes to the pages of The Weekly Standard to illustrate his view that President Obama’s policy in the Middle East is essentially an “antisurge”: rather than bolstering moderate Sunnis to combat ISIS, the U.S. coordinates with extremist Shiites to accomplish that goal, which has the potential to further alienate Sunni Arabs.
David Brooks asserts in The New York Times that the administration has “made a series of stunning sacrifices…to get [a nuclear agreement].” By projecting Western pragmatism onto the Iranian regime, the administration, Brooks continues, is placing a “giant bet…on one interpretation.”
In his latest column, Charles Krauthammer writes that the agreement would give Iran a “flourishing” path to a nuclear weapon and “means the end of nonproliferation.” Michael Makovsky of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs warned in The Weekly Standard that a nuclear deal with Iran that would allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons would “severely [undermine]” American credibility with its allies.
[Photo: RT / YouTube]