In the early 2000s, the refrain “We will not negotiate with terrorists” proved popular among conservatives. With the nation still reeling from the pain of the Sept. 11 attacks — and our military then deeply embedded in Iraq and Afghanistan — this oft-repeated mantra served no purpose other than to undermine the multitude of criticisms lobbied against President George W. Bush’s “War on Terror.”
“We will not negotiate with terrorists” ignores the geopolitical complexities of the Middle East and operates under the bullheaded assumption that might makes right.
The ever-mounting threat posed by the Islamic State group speaks to the abject failure of the “we will not negotiate with terrorists” policy.
As I understood politics at the time, diplomacy and deal breaking were far better alternatives to military action.
If negotiations and arbitration are indeed preferable, why does the recent deal brokered with Iran fill me with dread?
Upon the completion of the deal on July 14, I initially felt satisfied; compromised diplomacy, even with the most abhorrent of political actors, is better than nothing at all.
On my Facebook, I shared a 2012 piece published by Foreign Affairs titled “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb.” Past the provocative title, the piece essentially argued that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, it would bring stability to the Middle East with Iran locking itself in a state of deterrence with Israel.
On first read, this made perfect sense.
As I argued with my peers, Iran would prefer to become prosperous due to the lifting of sanctions relative to engaging in an ideological war with Israel — as much as the Iranian government likes to tout its status as an Islamic Republic and denounce the very existence of Israel, it only makes sense that the country would be more immediately concerned with the well-being of its own citizens than the destruction of others.
But then I kept reading and discussing.
This past Monday, a friend of mine made a particularly chilling observation: given Iran’s blatant financial sponsorship of Hamas, the Gaza Strip-based terror group that seeks the destruction of the Jewish state, what would stop Iran from providing the terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon to be snuck into Israel?
I then felt quite foolish for not even considering the idea.
When thinking about international relations — at least as they pertained to this situation — I had erroneously assumed governments are bound by mutually agreed upon rules.
As any basic world history lesson would teach, this is far from the case.
Although I have innumerable qualms with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud Party, I fully support the continued existence of Israel. I also prefer dialogue and debate to gunfire and explosions.
But as for where I stand on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, I remain unsure.
Agreement or not, Iran will continue to pursue its nuclear interests as well as fund terrorist groups across the Middle East; in that regard, something (an agreement) is better than nothing (unchecked aggressions).
I just wish that reading the details of the deal didn’t leave me with a sinking pit in my stomach.
Zach Schlein is a UF political science senior. His column appears on Thursdays.
[A version of this story ran on page 6 on 7/23/15]
