Why The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Win
The Iran nuclear deal is a win for the West because it is a loss for ISIS. The deal represents an existential threat to ISIS because it signals a change in Western policy away from the destabilization doctrine welcoming balkanization and chaos and towards the West living with stable Muslim states in the Middle East.
Rand Paul and others have publicly stated the obvious that ISIS is essentially the creation of the US and its regional allies. If the Middle East achieves some level of stability and peace with Iran, ISIS is doomed and the strategy of destabilizing the region by funding these extremist Salafist and Wahhabist groups against various regional governments (Syria, Iraq and Iran) may have run its course.
What Was The BATNA?
Iran has agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges and 24/7 inspection given a 14 day notice which is not enough time to “hide” activity. Opponents of this deal have not even illustrated what their preferred best alternative to the negotiated agreement (batna) is. Peter Beinart at the Atlantic outlines the three ways to deal with Iranian nuclear policy. We can do nothing and preserve the status quo which would only ensure that Iran continues to develop their nuclear program. We can step up the sanctions, but that is not guaranteed at all because other nations, particularly in the EU, have friendlier more symbiotic relations with Iran. Finally, we can go to war which will quickly become a destabilized regional conflict.
Opponents have also failed to explain why countries like the U.K, Germany, and France, all of whom face a greater threat from a nuclear Iran than the U.S., would go along with this deal. That’s right, other countries facing a greater threat from Iran than the U.S., were involved with this negotiation. If opponents don’t trust Obama, do they also not trust that David Cameron and Angela Merkel want to keep their countries from getting nuked? They are much closer to Iran so they can get hit more quickly by a nuclear attack than the US. They also would be affected by fallout from a nuclear attack by Iran on, say, Israel.
The facts of the matter is, Iran does not have the missile technology to fire an ICBM all the way to the US, and Israel will no doubt keep looking out for itself and take action if Iran ever perfected a nuclear weapon and was inclined to launch it at them. In fact, preemptive attack will be more difficult now for everyone as P5+1 personnel will be at nuclear sites in Iran, and no one wants to start World War 3 by killing American, French, British, German, Russian, or Chinese inspectors. As far as Iran being more dangerous with nuclear capabilities as an exporter of terrorism, has any country in the world ever made a nuclear bomb just to give it away to someone else?
We haven’t had any kind of relationship with them in 35 years. From the point of the severing of that relationship, Iran has not stopped development of its nuclear program. The sanctions have destroyed its people, but not its nuclear ambitions. This has persisted throughout the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II presidencies. Like with our policy towards Cuba, this presidency has decided that continuing what has been an ineffective deterrent for decades will no longer be the case. Only time will tell if he is correct.
The deal we ended up with isn’t perfect by any means but I think its better than any alternative I’ve heard discussed so far. Ronald Reagan took a big chance when he signed a nuclear treaty with the Soviets that was criticized by many, but eventually ended up working out. Let’s see how this one goes and slap big consequences onto Iran if they renege. Iran is a young country with a fairly pro-American urban populace in Tehran. This deal may not only delay any bomb, but may change the regime in Tehran.