The new deal on Iran’s nuclear program could bring one of the most sweeping changes in decades to Washington’s strategic calculus — if it holds.
The Pentagon has devoted tens of thousands of troops, billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and a huge amount of brainpower toward deterring the Iranian nuclear nightmare that this weekend’s announcement might ultimately forestall.
From aircraft carrier strike groups to massive bunker-busting weapons to the bases of “Southwest Asia” – a polite fiction the Air Force uses to sidestep acknowledging its troops and warplanes in places such as Qatar and Kuwait – the American military effort to deter Iranian aggression is immense.
So if Iran gave up its ability to obtain nuclear weapons, there’s no telling what ripple effects could ultimately result for the U.S. military and security throughout the Middle East and the world.
In announcing the Geneva agreement late Saturday, President Barack Obama said he believed Washington and the world had the duty to explore those possibilities.
“I have a profound responsibility to try to resolve our differences peacefully, rather than rush toward conflict,” he said at the White House. “Today, we have a real opportunity to achieve a comprehensive, peaceful settlement, and I believe we must test it.”
Even the most optimistic Middle East analyst probably is not cockeyed enough to expect that Iran’s nuclear agreement also means it would withdraw the many tentacles it uses to work its will in places from Syria to Iraq to the tiny Gulf kingdom of Bahrain. But eliminating the nuclear threat from the geostrategic equation in the neighborhood would reduce the risks to the U.S. and its allies – especially Israel – by many orders of magnitude.
And there could be political and diplomatic ramifications much farther afield.
For example, a nuclear-free Iran might mean the U.S. and its European allies could scale back or abandon their plans to build an American-backed missile defense shield, designed to protect European capitals from an Iranian missile attack. American destroyers already patrol the Mediterranean Sea as part of the missile defense effort and U.S. and Romanian officials broke ground late last month on the “Aegis Ashore” missile defense complex at Romania’s Deveselu Air Base.
The European missile defense shield has been a major diplomatic problem for the U.S. and Russia, partly because Russian President Vladimir Putin fears it could threaten Russia’s strategic arsenal. If the Iranian nuclear threat went away and took with it the dispute over European missile defense, that would be one less problem between Washington and Moscow – although there certainly are many others.
Missile defense advocates in the United States such as Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who have been pushing for a new East Coast site to defend against a potential Iranian attack, might find that case much tougher to make with the threat from Tehran gone.
There could be other such second and third-order effects. Just the same, no one in Washington is daydreaming yet about how to spend any Iranian peace dividend.
The president himself tried to manage expectations in his remarks Saturday night to praise the deal. “It won’t be easy and huge challenges remain ahead,” he said. And administration officials said they remain clear-eyed about Iran’s record of duplicity.
Conservatives were even more skeptical about the nuclear deal.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — a vocal sanctions hawk who wants to add new restrictions to the defense authorizatin bill the Senate left in limbo – said Saturday night he thought Iran was getting off easy since it’s keeping its enrichment centrifuges.
And Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), used a talking point that Republicans first leveled at the president when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) opted to use the so-called “nuclear option” to change its filibuster rules on Thursday: Obama and Democrats are only trying to change the storyline in Washington away from the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act.
Advocates for diplomacy urged the U.S., its allies and Iran not to be swayed by the voices in Israel and some other countries that might suspect a trick or urge the players to hold out for what they believe is a better deal.
“This is the beginning, not the end of the process,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council. “Many obstacles and potential spoilers remain. Hardliners in both countries will work harder than ever to sabotage this pivot towards a diplomatic path. Those whose only currency is confrontation will search for any opportunities they can find to undermine and sabotage this interim deal.”
And arms control advocates said that the prospects for an end to the Iranian nuclear threat and worth the effort that would go into a permanent agreement.
“A verifiable freeze of Iran’s nuclear program is an important step toward increasing American security and the security of our allies in the Middle East,” said Joel Rubin, director of policy and government affairs for the Ploughshares Fund. “Now is the time for patience. As diplomacy continues, we applaud the bipartisan members of Congress who stand ready to support America’s negotiators in their ongoing diplomatic efforts.”
Iran deal could change the strategic calculus
No comments:
Post a Comment