The Mexican standoff between Iran, the U.S. and Israel over the nuclear talks due to end this month have already caused a bunch of ruckus in their respective countries. The talks had wide-reaching effects, including Tuesday’s elections in Israel and the legacies of our sitting president and the legislators who’ve made it their life’s work to oppose him. The deal comes at a time when the Middle East is once again the center of world chaos and general upheaval.
In an interview released Monday, President Barack Obama said “ISIL is direct outgrowth of Al-Qaida in Iraq, which grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences, which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.” Although he was talking about the anti-ISIS coalition’s strategy, this works just as well as a quip against his colleagues in Congress who oppose the deal.
His statement is significant. He correctly affirms American primacy and influence over world affairs without conforming to the rigid dogma of American Exceptionalism, which is an ardent denial that the U.S. has any capability to make mistakes. This outlook affirms our power and status but retains a responsibility to use it wisely.
By acknowledging the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe responsible for, among many things, the rise of the most terrifying gang of religious nutcases since the Crusades, Obama made a strong point against the no-deal-with-Iran crowd.
The deal, by the way, would allow Iran to develop nuclear energy capabilities under strict observation by the international community, which is a textbook case of — as they call it on the first day of International Relations class — diplomacy. It’s not like the P5+1 is handing a sack of uranium over to the Ayatollah along with directions to Tel Aviv. The deal just makes the possibility of war with Iran a last resort, as opposed to Plan A.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu expressed his disdain for a diplomatic solution in a campaign speech that happened to take place in the chambers of the U.S. Congress. He argued that Iran’s government is hateful and totalitarian, subjecting its citizens to numerous horrific abuses, often on the basis of anti-Semitism. He’s not wrong — he’s just being arrogant. Iran is pretty much exactly as he described, but without a deal the only deterrent is war. He gave similar advice in 2002, urging intervention in a then-thought-to-be-harboring-WMDs Iraq. Look how well that turned out for everyone.
We know aggression and antagonism on the front end definitely won’t work. We can hope a deal does and fall back on more forceful tactics if it fails. But those who would make the classic blunder of getting involved in a land war in Asia over the deal are either woefully shortsighted or giddy for another decade of suffering, death and destabilization.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 3/18/2015 under the headline “Obama right to call out Iran deal critics”]
