On January 20th, 2016, we find ourselves stuck between two ideals.
The first is the ideal set on the same day, twenty-five years ago when President Reagan took office and the Iranian hostage crisis ended moments later. This was a time when America slammed Iran with sanctions and assisted efforts of war against the country that committed acts of terrorism. When Americans were united in their love of country, if inspired by a hatred of the enemy. A time when America demanded respect under the leadership of President Reagan, as opposed to when the Iranians embarrassed President Carter in hostage negotiations. For many on the right, these Reagan years are the ideal to attain again.
The second is the ideal of the future which President Obama believes in and the one he hopes his Iranian Nuclear Deal helps to bring about. It’s a future where we no longer have to worry about Iran taking hostages or sponsoring terrorism and, most importantly, building nuclear weapons. It’s a worthy ideal, but who is it worth the most to?
Consider that the Deal came about because Iran was building their nuclear weapon capabilities. Does getting caught doing something wrong and then holding the threat over our head something that garners trust? The continued ballistic missile tests sure doesn’t. And the assurances coming from Iran that ballistic missile enhancement will continue, especially as long as the Unites States continues to exert influence in the Middle East and support Israel, makes things worse.
On the other hand, the recent hostage situation of our Navy men and woman- or non-hostage situation- may have been a sign of progress. While the situation was upsetting, it is fair to say that it could have been much worse, and twenty-five years ago it was. But as we stand today, is the Iran that President Obama is choosing to trust, but verify (a nod to Reagan) closer to the Iran of twenty-five years ago or the idealized Iran of twenty-five years from now? It’s very possible that Iran will become the country we want it to be. The youth in Iran is supposedly pro-Western and secular, but we’ve heard that before and things have not changed much. So what assurances do we have, other than the hope that things will finally change if we’re nice to them? Or do we have one more card to play?
We gave Iran their money, but there’s something they still want: the ability to do business with the world. In other words, an opening to the international community, something President Obama believes in, and something President Obama should still use to achieve his ideal.
Iran made one of two choices with the Deal. The first is they decided that having nuclear weapon capabilities wasn’t as desirable as being part of the international community, or two, they’re lying and will take the billions they can get until they’re caught continuing their nuclear proliferation. If it’s the latter, then they’re an enemy and every and all options should be on the table. War has changed; the rules of it should, too. But if Iran chose the former, and they recognize being part of the international community is their best interest, then the community has the power to set the criteria.
The West can’t make laws in Iran, but they can influence them. Iran may receive their unfrozen funds, but the community doesn’t have to do business with them. If Iran wants to reap the communal benefits, it has to do so under the terms of this civilized community. It has to recognize the rights of women, of members of the gay and lesbian persuasion, of the right of our ally Israel to exist, and it has to stop fomenting strife between the factions within Islam. This doesn’t just help Iran, it could help bring us closer to peace in the Middle East and it breaks away at the breeding ground for groups like ISIS. Living in an environment where it’s the law to jail someone for expressing something contrary to the leadership or where it’s honorable to kill someone because they’re gay or were raped breeds the kind of person who believes it’s acceptable to cut someone’s head off or burn them in a cage for disagreeing with them. And again, if Iran made the decision that being part of this community is more valuable to them than having nuclear weapons and being an enemy, then we still have power in negotiations. These terms should have been central to the original Iran Nuclear Deal. That’s the biggest critique of the Deal as it is: it was made in the ideal world of the future, where Iran is the worthy member of the international community. But they’re not. Not yet, at least. But it’s not too late get there.
We’re stuck between two ideals. One makes us feel safe and strong, and knowing we’ve done it before makes us believe we could attain it again, and that adds some comfort. The other? The other could leave us better than we ever were. It’s noble to aspire to that latter ideal, but aspirations aren’t enough. If we want to salvage the leverage we had with the Deal, we need to push the issue and we need to push it now before the Iran of today enters the community and empowers the current leadership as they are, which allows them to continue being this Iran long into the future. And that is not anyone’s ideal.
No comments:
Post a Comment