Iran: A historic agreement; can it survive?

The usual suspects – the Republican hawks that control Congress and their best Middle East pal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – are throwing a major tantrum. It’s all over the fact that the United States and five other world powers – Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia – reached a framework agreement with Iran aimed at preventing the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapons program.

In exchange for Iran submitting to specific limits to their nuclear development and a strict inspection regime, the harsh international sanctions against that nation would be lifted. Some hardliners in Iran are believed to be unhappy with the deal, but they have been unusually silent, reportedly because the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man who has the last word in Iran and who by all indications backs the agreement, instructed them to keep it zipped.

It’s an entirely different story in Washington. Republicans in Congress have been vocal in their opposition as have right-wing pundits. For example, Bret Stephens, writing in the archconservative editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, penned a column titled “The Capitulationist.” The lead sentence? “For a sense of the magnitude of the capitulation represented by Barack Obama’s Iran diplomacy…” The column ran on March 30, days before any agreement had been reached, much less the details disclosed. Indeed, at the time U.S. negotiators were very unsure a deal could even be reached.

The reaction of the Israeli PM can only be described as apoplectic and apocalyptic. A furious Netanyahu called it “a very bad deal.” And he is showing his deep discontent by once again trying to rally U.S. opponents of the bargain, starting by appearing on three Sunday morning political talk shows last weekend.

The Israeli leader told CNN that the framework did not do enough to dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. World powers were making a mistake by offering Iran a path to sanctions relief without demanding more in return, he argued. “A better deal would roll back Iran’s vast nuclear infrastructure, and require Iran to stop its aggression in the region, its terror worldwide and its calls and actions to annihilate the state of Israel,” he stated.

None of this comes as any surprise; Netanyahu always has been against a deal with Iran. But his position has been weakened substantially by the unanimity of the six important countries that approved the framework. So he is forced to argue that he would go along with a deal, just not this one.

The reality is that Netanyahu believes that any deal the Iranians are willing to cut must be, ipso facto, a bad deal. But he knows that attitude won’t cut it and that he needs to appear reasonable, so he argues that the U.S. and its partners should hold out for a better deal and that such a deal is achievable.

This is Netanyahu at his most cynical. He knows full well that Iran would never agree to the conditions he is setting forth. By talking about seeking a better deal while setting the bar so high no deal is possible, he wants to appear as ready to compromise when he is not.

Netanyahu has a lot of experience at this game. He has been playing it with the Palestinians for years. He says he supports negotiations and a Palestinian state with one side of his mouth and with the other side he says just the opposite. And he consistently takes actions, like expanding the settlements, that guarantee that no peace process can succeed and that there can be no viable Palestinian state.

Republicans are themselves somewhat between a rock and a hard place. Since the end point of the negotiations would not produce a treaty, Congress does not have to consent.  Nonetheless, the GOP appears poised to try to get a vote in Congress, but they don’t have the required sixty votes in the Senate and any vote would not be binding on the President.

Moreover, a recent poll showed 59 percent of Americans approve the terms of the framework. Interestingly, there is a curious coincidence in the feelings of Americans and Iranians regarding the deal. Most Americans and a majority of Iranians approve the framework. But both Iranians and Americans mistrust the motives and the adherence by the other side to the stated terms. Given decades of hostile relations, this is no surprise. But the Americans’ mistrust of Iran seems to provide U.S. and Israeli opponents the best angle to exploit.

Things are likely to get very ugly. Expect a surfeit of vituperative talk about Iran and plenty of Obama bashing. The idea would be to make it so politically damaging for Obama (and the next Democratic presidential candidate) to finalize the deal that the president would back out of it. Alternatively, the Iranians might become so angry with the vitriol directed at them that they will tell the United States to shove it.

These scenarios are possible and tragic. So far, however, Obama has vigorously defended the deal, calling it “historic.” The Iranians are so used to insults from Washington and Jerusalem that with so much at stake they might keep their cool too. I wouldn’t bet the farm on it (not even my backyard), but my sense is that, when all is said and done, the agreement will stick.

Progreso Weekly authorizes the total or partial reproduction of the articles by our journalists so long as source and author are identified.