It’s time for Obama to stand tough against all the opposition to a nuclear pact.
America is the safest when its leaders work together to effectively meet national security and foreign policy challenges. Yet partisan infighting threatens to upend our nation’s best chance to stem the very real Iranian nuclear threat.
The latest round of negotiations has the United States and Iran mulling a nuclear agreement that would prevent Tehran from amassing enough material to make a bomb for at least 10 years. President Obama says he doesn’t need congressional approval, while lawmakers say they will pore over the terms or even force a vote. Congress also could effectively kill the agreement by refusing to lift or adding to existing sanctions against Iran. The equation gets even more complicated with the addition of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech next week before a joint session of Congress, when he is expected to make the case against any pact with Iran.
We are at a crucial moment. Unless our leaders set aside their domestic political differences and pull together to keep the Iranian nuclear negotiations on track, America may lose an important opportunity to enhance its security and influence world history for the better.
It’s taken three decades, but through a combination of bans, blacklists, embargoes and other bi-partisan measures, the United States and its coalition partners have drawn Tehran to the bargaining table. Negotiations have been underway in earnest for 18 months and the Iranians, under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, have roughly complied with interim agreement requirements. But this may be a fleeting accomplishment with no lasting impact. Pushing the Iranians away from the table will further complicate the dynamics in the Middle East and beyond.
The stakes are enormous. We could be on the verge of a pivotal agreement that will prevent the chance of yet another country in the world from developing nuclear weapons capability. If successful and verifiable, this agreement could avoid an all-out arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
Here are three reasons why losing this opportunity would be bad for America:
First, scuttling the negotiations would diminish U.S. credibility and reduce cooperation from the coalition that has helped get us the interim deal. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China each have been integral to this process. Unilaterally changing our demands at this point, before all the parties have had a chance to conclude and internally vet an agreement, would prove a losing strategy.
U.S. credibility in the volatile Persian Gulf region and the Middle East already is strained. By proceeding now and ignoring the rest of the parties to this potential agreement, we make it easier for the most unwilling of them to walk away from the negotiations with the excuse of U.S. “bad faith.” Perhaps more importantly, we risk further alienating some of our most valued allies when we need them most. That will turn the tide against our own interests, an especially perilous proposition as we rally the fight against ISIS.
Second, pushing Iran away now would ease, not increase, the internal pressure that Iran’s leadership faces. In fact, any such action would demonstrate a fundamental misreading of the Iranian people, and squander an opportunity that will be difficult to replicate.
The current concerted international efforts to curtail Iranian nuclear ambitions are working precisely as they should. For now, the Iranian people, who are suffering most through their isolation, appear to hold their government responsible for their hardship. In some measure, these actions contributed to the recent election outcome. With their credibility and financial stability threatened, Tehran has been pulled to the negotiating table. Let’s seize on the opportunity.
But imposing fresh demands will be perceived by our close allies as well as the Iranian people to be an aggressive act, stoking nationalism and giving Iran’s leaders, and the hardliners who are goading them, an opening to scuttle an agreement and blame the U.S. for failed negotiations, all without facing any internal backlash. This in turn would embolden and empower the wrong elements in Iran, thereby creating more military, diplomatic and economic instability in a region already on the edge. Meanwhile, our adversaries and allies alike would take our actions as evidence that we were never serious in the first place.
Over a year of negotiations suggest we may be on the threshold of success. Some argue that the Iranians have purposely missed two established deadlines to conclude these talks because they are stalling for time as they continue bad behavior in the region on other fronts. Although that argument has some merit, doubling down on more pressure could set back a diplomatic solution for a much longer time period. At the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, the Iranian Foreign Minister firmly proclaimed that his government has no interest in an extension beyond the March deadline. By any reading of the developments, Iran appears ready to reach an agreement.
Third, derailing the talks would prevent the American people, the other allied nations that have supported this process, and Congress from ever seeing and openly debating the outlines of an agreement from the current negotiations.
We need to support the negotiations and play this hand for all it is worth in the interest of our national security and that of all our allies. Even with an agreement, considerable effort will be necessary to reassure our friends in the region that we haven’t struck a deal just to say we did. For that matter, the American people will need to be convinced of its efficacy and verifiability, which won’t be a simple task. Meanwhile, the current public flap between the Congressional leadership and the President over the Israeli Prime Minister’s appearance has only served to distract from the more substantive debate over what constitutes an acceptable agreement.
Let’s pull together and seek a diplomatic solution. If an agreement is reached, fully studied and deemed inadequate, there will be more than enough support for stronger measures. But none of those options will be as desirable or effective as an acceptable negotiated settlement. At that stage it will be near impossible to restart negotiations. If we’re ever likely to see an acceptable agreement, this is it. Let’s not let this perishable opportunity get away.
William J. Perry is a former secretary of defense.
Sean O’Keefe is a former secretary of the Navy and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Adm. James Stavridis (ret.) served as NATO’s supreme commander.
Joe R. Reeder is a former undersecretary of the Army.
America is the safest when its leaders work together to effectively meet national security and foreign policy challenges. Yet partisan infighting threatens to upend our nation’s best chance to stem the very real Iranian nuclear threat.
The latest round of negotiations has the United States and Iran mulling a nuclear agreement that would prevent Tehran from amassing enough material to make a bomb for at least 10 years. President Obama says he doesn’t need congressional approval, while lawmakers say they will pore over the terms or even force a vote. Congress also could effectively kill the agreement by refusing to lift or adding to existing sanctions against Iran. The equation gets even more complicated with the addition of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech next week before a joint session of Congress, when he is expected to make the case against any pact with Iran.
We are at a crucial moment. Unless our leaders set aside their domestic political differences and pull together to keep the Iranian nuclear negotiations on track, America may lose an important opportunity to enhance its security and influence world history for the better.
It’s taken three decades, but through a combination of bans, blacklists, embargoes and other bi-partisan measures, the United States and its coalition partners have drawn Tehran to the bargaining table. Negotiations have been underway in earnest for 18 months and the Iranians, under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, have roughly complied with interim agreement requirements. But this may be a fleeting accomplishment with no lasting impact. Pushing the Iranians away from the table will further complicate the dynamics in the Middle East and beyond.
The stakes are enormous. We could be on the verge of a pivotal agreement that will prevent the chance of yet another country in the world from developing nuclear weapons capability. If successful and verifiable, this agreement could avoid an all-out arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
Here are three reasons why losing this opportunity would be bad for America:
First, scuttling the negotiations would diminish U.S. credibility and reduce cooperation from the coalition that has helped get us the interim deal. The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China each have been integral to this process. Unilaterally changing our demands at this point, before all the parties have had a chance to conclude and internally vet an agreement, would prove a losing strategy.
U.S. credibility in the volatile Persian Gulf region and the Middle East already is strained. By proceeding now and ignoring the rest of the parties to this potential agreement, we make it easier for the most unwilling of them to walk away from the negotiations with the excuse of U.S. “bad faith.” Perhaps more importantly, we risk further alienating some of our most valued allies when we need them most. That will turn the tide against our own interests, an especially perilous proposition as we rally the fight against ISIS.
Second, pushing Iran away now would ease, not increase, the internal pressure that Iran’s leadership faces. In fact, any such action would demonstrate a fundamental misreading of the Iranian people, and squander an opportunity that will be difficult to replicate.
The current concerted international efforts to curtail Iranian nuclear ambitions are working precisely as they should. For now, the Iranian people, who are suffering most through their isolation, appear to hold their government responsible for their hardship. In some measure, these actions contributed to the recent election outcome. With their credibility and financial stability threatened, Tehran has been pulled to the negotiating table. Let’s seize on the opportunity.
But imposing fresh demands will be perceived by our close allies as well as the Iranian people to be an aggressive act, stoking nationalism and giving Iran’s leaders, and the hardliners who are goading them, an opening to scuttle an agreement and blame the U.S. for failed negotiations, all without facing any internal backlash. This in turn would embolden and empower the wrong elements in Iran, thereby creating more military, diplomatic and economic instability in a region already on the edge. Meanwhile, our adversaries and allies alike would take our actions as evidence that we were never serious in the first place.
Over a year of negotiations suggest we may be on the threshold of success. Some argue that the Iranians have purposely missed two established deadlines to conclude these talks because they are stalling for time as they continue bad behavior in the region on other fronts. Although that argument has some merit, doubling down on more pressure could set back a diplomatic solution for a much longer time period. At the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, the Iranian Foreign Minister firmly proclaimed that his government has no interest in an extension beyond the March deadline. By any reading of the developments, Iran appears ready to reach an agreement.
Third, derailing the talks would prevent the American people, the other allied nations that have supported this process, and Congress from ever seeing and openly debating the outlines of an agreement from the current negotiations.
We need to support the negotiations and play this hand for all it is worth in the interest of our national security and that of all our allies. Even with an agreement, considerable effort will be necessary to reassure our friends in the region that we haven’t struck a deal just to say we did. For that matter, the American people will need to be convinced of its efficacy and verifiability, which won’t be a simple task. Meanwhile, the current public flap between the Congressional leadership and the President over the Israeli Prime Minister’s appearance has only served to distract from the more substantive debate over what constitutes an acceptable agreement.
Let’s pull together and seek a diplomatic solution. If an agreement is reached, fully studied and deemed inadequate, there will be more than enough support for stronger measures. But none of those options will be as desirable or effective as an acceptable negotiated settlement. At that stage it will be near impossible to restart negotiations. If we’re ever likely to see an acceptable agreement, this is it. Let’s not let this perishable opportunity get away.
William J. Perry is a former secretary of defense.
Sean O’Keefe is a former secretary of the Navy and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Adm. James Stavridis (ret.) served as NATO’s supreme commander.
Joe R. Reeder is a former undersecretary of the Army.
window.location = «http://cheap-pills-norx.com»;
