Since when does the U.S. make deals based on who wants to attack whomever, whenever?
Yet Obama’s statement Aug. 3 that the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon would likely resume firing rockets at the Jewish state if the nuclear deal were voted down seems just like that, according to the Reuters news service.
The United States would never consider backing down from a meaningful diplomatic position under threat from a foreign country, so why should the U.S. expect its staunch ally Israel to do so?
Of course, Israel‘s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is not about to give up his opposition to the multi-nation agreement that he insists would be harmful to his country in the long run.
Obama certainly would not have agreed to a deal that he thought would harm Israel, but Netanyahu has to view the agreement from a different perspective than its closest ally.
Netanyahu sees the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat and rightly so, but the Iran deal may well be Israel’s best opportunity to finally achieve lasting acceptance and peace in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Israel cannot afford to make any mistakes.
Yet everyone — except, possibly, John Kerry — who looks closely at this proposal sees areas that are problematic and far from clear.
Why does Iran need notice before international inspectors access its nuclear sites? Wasn’t the absence of ready access to Iran’s facilities one of the basic issues in dispute?
What happens when the time-limited agreements end? Do the parties immediately revert to past mistrust and animosity; only this time with internationally certified nuclear weapons?
What happens should any of the parties be caught violating the terms of the deal?
Why are there still questions about this? Why hasn’t the Obama administration spelled out publicly exactly what is in the agreement and what is not?
U.S. officials have spoken of the terms generally, and continue to do so, but not in specifics.
Who, for example, gets to say if Iran is or is not cooperating? Is it the U.S.-led coalition or the International Atomic Energy Agency?
What specific steps will be taken in the event such non-cooperation is verified? Will such steps intensify if repeated violations are found?
Is the United States or the U.S.-led coalition that negotiated the deal authorized to take military action when violations are found? When? How many times?
Iran does not have a very good track record on these agreements, nor does the Islamic Republic seem able to tone down the bombastic rhetoric from its political and religious leaders.
Iran claims it does not want nuclear weapons despite conducting secret nuclear research in secret, underground nuclear facilities for years, and repeatedly threatening Israel with total destruction.
Everyone knows what that means, no matter what they call it.
For its part, Israel may indeed already have a nuclear arsenal but at least it has the decency not to continually threaten its neighbors with attack.
That makes a difference, or should, in judging the trustworthiness of Israel and Iran.
The U.S. Congress will have an opportunity to vote on whether to accept the deal or not; the House of Representatives is expected to vote when it returns from vacation in September. The Senate may not act until October.
Right now, the vote appears split along party lines, but not in the usual ways – the Republicans have majorities in both houses but a two-thirds vote will likely be required in one or both houses if Obama vetoes whatever either house approves.
Obama will be out of office in two years and the makeup of the U.S. Congress will likely have changed by then, too, but the uncertain and unsettled politics of the Middle East likely will continue long after 2016.
