THE DUOPOLY WATCH | Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Trust —
who can you trust, and who you cannot — has come up as a major issue in
the aftermath of the signing of the “Iran Deal” on Iran’s nuclear energy
program, between Iran and the “Five + 1” negotiating group. As is well
known, the Republicans in the United States and their vassals in Israel
gathered around Prime Minister Netanyahu (or is it t’other way round), have
been in full-throated roar against any agreement with Iran since long before
the final negotiations concluded with the deal that is now on the table.
It has been pointed out
repeatedly that the critics of the deal have never seemed to offer a viable
alternative to it, unless the alternative, which many observers, although not
all (like the U.S. Sec. Def.), would consider not viable, is the “military
option.” But the complete lack of any stated alternatives, other than “no
deal is better than this one,” doesn’t stop the critics from criticizing.
They get louder, and nastier, by the day. One Repub. Congressman
questioned Purple-heart awardee Sec. John Kerry’s record of service to the
United States. And speaking of nasty, John Bolton ---
surprise, surprise --- one of the staunchest critics, claims that Obama lies
when he says that sanctions would “snap back” should Iran violate the terms of
the agreement. On top of that one, like
all of the rest of the critics, he offers no alternative strategies, except,
unstated, I suppose the “military option.”
But having no alternatives to openly offer, viable or not, does not stop them from being determined to
scuttle the deal by getting a veto-proof Congressional majority that would
prevent President Obama from lifting the U.S.-imposed economic sanctions
against Iran.
And so, we hear lots about
Iranian ”cheating” and “you can’t trust the Iranians.” It happens
that a large set of top
experts have said that the deal is about as air-tight as one could make
it. For example:
“Anthony Cordesman, the
Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a former national security aide to Sen. John McCain, and
a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense [not exactly screaming liberal] said: ‘[T]he proposed parameters and
framework in the Proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has the potential
to meet every test in creating a valid agreement over time…It can block both an
Iranian nuclear threat and a nuclear arms race in the region, and it is a
powerful beginning to creating a full agreement, and creating the prospect for
broader stability in other areas.’ “
And there are many other experts quoted in the article cited just
above. So it would seem that, in dealing with Iran, at least, concerning
the Reagan motto “trust and verify,” the agreement goes very heavy on the
verify side, so that trust really doesn’t play into it too much — for the U.S.
But there is a major trust issue in play here. That is: Why
should the Iranians trust the U.S., and Israeli, politicians, interest
groups, and money-men arrayed against the deal, and then beyond them, the U.S.,
should they ever get into power? After all, a leading Repub. Politician, former Arkansas Governor
Mike Huckabee, in discussing the possible risk of the deal to the nation of
Israel, has compared the deal with preparing the way for another
Holocaust. Funny, I don’t recall that the 6,000,000 Jews murdered by
the Nazis were holding in front of them, on their way to the Death Camps, 400
operational (and totally un-inspected) nuclear weapons, that for some unknown
reason they chose not to use. But maybe I missed something. And oh
yes, in case you didn’t know, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty while Israel is not. Should the Iranians really
trust Huckabee and his people (to say nothing of Israel)? Well, no.
When there is Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, the one who sent the
“we won’t support it” letter directly to
the government of Iran during a critical stage of the negotiations.
According to the letter “Cotton promised Iran that the United States would not
live up to its end of the bargain.” Cotton appears to be in the pocket of the U.S.
military-industrial complex, which stands to lose a lot of juice (as well
as billions in profits) should the deal be ratified in the end. Should
Iran trust him (and them)? Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, the son of refugees
from Batista’s (not Castro’s) Cuba,
a candidate for the Repub. nomination for President who, unlike Huckabee,
actually stands a chance of getting it. Rubio has actually said that he
is elected President, one of his first acts
would be to scrap the deal.
Once one takes a careful look at what the opponents of the deal
are saying, it becomes quickly apparent that it is not the details that they
are against, for if that were it, they would be offering all kinds of
alternatives, which they are not. So if it’s not the deal itself, what
are they against? (I dealt with this issue at length in an
earlier column on the subject.) Well, in summary, I am revealing nothing
very mysterious in saying that of course they are against it because a) it will
have President Obama’s name on it, and b) with the onset of a modicum of peace
in the Middle East and the economic (not the military) resurgence of Iran as a
player on the world stage, the U.S./Israeli military-industrial complexes would
take a big hit. They have their very well-known huge influence in the
Congress, which is where the Duopoly issue comes in on this one. Those
Democrats who leave the President on this one will do so for one or more of
three reasons: a) they haven’t read the proposed agreement and truly accept the
Repub. propaganda that it is fatally flawed, b) they are terrified of and/or
beholden to the Likud/Israel lobby, c) they are beholden to the
military-industrial complex.
So, getting back to it, there is a trust issue on the table
alright. It’s whether Iran should trust the United States to keep to its pledge to lift sanctions
permanently, as long as Iran keeps its end of the bargain by not pursuing the
development of nuclear weapons through a very-heavily inspected nuclear energy
program. (Oh yes, the [lying] critics to the contrary notwithstanding, the
“24-day-delay-before-
Now, it would be much easier for the U.S. to re-impose sanctions
at the drop of a political hat than it would be for Iran to start/re-start the
nuclear bomb program (that in any case the CIA has for a
long-time said does not exist). Given
the political/economy of the U.S., Iran probably does not trust it as far as it
can throw it. But they desperately need to have the sanctions
lifted. With the European nations already charging into Iran on both the
import and export sides of their economy, and with Russia and China very likely
to become major lenders should the U.S. insist on maintaining its sanctions,
the Iranians very likely feel that they don’t have to trust the
U.S. And given the Repub./Likud screaming match, they shouldn’t. It
is apparent that, being the inheritors of a nation that has been around for
3000 years and once boasted the world’s largest empire, they are willing to
take the risk of a U.S. turnabout for their potential gains. And that, my
friends, is the real “trust” issue around “the deal.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Senior
Editor, Politics, Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor Emeritus of Preventive Medicine at Stony
Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor/co-
No comments:
Post a Comment