So, here goes.
I learned today that my recent posts on Facebook are creating a minor kerfuffle; I say minor because I have embarrassingly few Facebook followers. Until recently, I've avoided using Facebook to pass on news or commentary, preferring to send articles and essays and my comments directly by email to friends and family - more personal and certainly less confusing (as my daughters can attest, I've never really understood all the ins and outs of Facebook communication).
What's the issue?
The other day I forwarded on Facebook Roger Cohen's New York Times' Op-Ed concerning the Iran deal - Iran; The "Obamacare of Foreign Policy". Cohen's point is that there are now enough votes in Congress to ensure that a Presidential veto will not be overridden, thereby averting the disaster of the the deal unraveling. While his preference would be a straight vote of approval writing, "An override-proof presidential veto of a congressional resolution of disapproval is not the best path to a historic international accord", I guess you take what you can get. Read Cohen's piece to understand why he believes a disaster was averted (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/roger-cohen-iran-the-obamacare-of-foreign-policy.html?_r=0).
Cohen goes on to say that while one disaster has been avoided, a second was revealed: Not one of the 301 Republican members of Congress supports the deal, prodded, in his opinion, by Prime Minister Netanyahu and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee).
It was the revealing of the second disaster that I commented on in Facebook:
"Among the many key points Cohen makes, two standout: Not one of 301 Congressional Republicans supports the deal; and AIPAC's inability to understand that without this deal, Iran is a nuclear-threshold state now, not in 15 years."
Here a few of the responses I've received (with my comments in italics):
- The alternative was to continue with sanctions until a favorable agreement would be made...
- Actually not. If the U.S. pulls out of the deal, the sanctions would have ended anyway as the remainder of the coalition would have dropped the sanctions. So we'd have Iran enjoying the fruits of less sanctions AND the ability to continue on its nuclear path.
- There is no more favorable agreement. As Cohen writes: "There was no “better deal.” That’s the fantasy of all those who hate Iran and hate Obama (which one more is often unclear)."
- Russia and China are the winners. Everyone else I believe went along - some had to be bribed
- With Iran's nuclear capabilities limited, the world community is the winner, as a nuclear armed Iran is off the table for a long time. I agree the deal is not perfect; no deal is. And, yes the deal does not prevent Iran from continuing to be a bad player on the world stage. But the agreement accomplishes its main goal - pulling Iran from the brink of the bomb.
- Not sure what the "bribe' was but I'm sure there will be a Congressional select committee investigation into it in the not-to-distant future (Darryl Issa, are you listening?).
- If Iran develops the bomb in the next year or two we will have to disarm them which will be more difficult
- With the deal in place, Iran won't have the capability to develop a bomb in the next year or two; that's the point of the deal. Nothing is certain, but it's only if we DON'T approve the deal will this contingency occur.
- Our countr(y's) relationship with American Jews and Israel are now severely damaged
- American Jewry is not a monolithic group. There are supporters and opponents of this deal in the American Jewish community (see J Street for the supporter side). It is not the duty or responsibility of American Jews to be in line with everything the Israeli government says or does.
- Iran like a Scorpion will make trouble from the beginning and the Administration will hide it if they can. Meanwhile the Saudis and Egypt will develop the bomb.
- Hard to comment on what sounds like conservative radio ranting. But I am intrigued by the conspiracy theory aspect of the Administration's hiding of Iran's Scorpion-like behavior. And perhaps the Saudis and Egypt will develop the bomb but not sure why they would AFTER Iran has been corralled from building theirs.
- Yes, but aren't we paying them (Iran) millions or billions to cooperate?
- No, we're lifting sanctions and putting in place a program that will verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yes, Iran will benefit economically. But deals require compromise on both sides. If the U.S. pulls out of the deal, Iran doesn't have to cooperate, benefits economically (the other coalition partners lift sanctions anyway) and continues to build a bomb.
My suspicion is that this post will engender a whole new set of comments. I hope it does. But I also hope that it allows for a thoughtful, considered discourse. As I mentioned to one of my Facebook correspondents, "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree". That's OK in my book.
