The Bad Deal With Iran – Should Congress Go Along Anyway?

Let’s start with the obvious.  U.S. negotiators failed to achieve the primary objective that President Obama set several years ago:  prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb.  Such a “non-negotiable” goal had been pledged repeatedly by the Obama Administration.  But, by the very terms of the deal, Teheran, which has never waivered from its commitment to destroy Israel, will be allowed to produce weapons in ten years or so.

 That is a failure to achieve America’s primary objective in joining the negotiations.  So should the deals rejection be a “no-brainer”?

No.  The Administration, on behalf of America, has made the deal.  Of course, Congress can over-ride it with a two-thirds vote in both chambers but then what? 

Sanctions will not be re-imposed by the other signatories to the agreement.  (The U.S. has been the stalwart proponent of them; others have been more reluctant.)  Simply put, sanctions would be enforced by the U.S. alone with, perhaps, cooperation from Britain.  With so few participants, the effectiveness of the newly imposed sanctions would be problematic at best.  Yet, is it even likely that would occur over the next one and a half years while Obama is still president?  Far more likely is that nothing will happen to discourage Iran.   Its nuclear production activities will continue.

[It’s moot at this juncture to contend that the administration’s evident eagerness to reach “any” deal doomed the chances of a better agreement.  So what?  Barack Obama is the President we’ve got.]

Sure, in the wake of Congress’ rejection, the U.S. could focus on destabilizing the regime with covert activities, etc., if we had an administration inclined to pursue such aggressive activities.  We don’t.

Approving the pact does allow the continuation of some leverage.  Approximately six months after its implementation, if Iran has complied with certain terms, billions in funds are scheduled to be released to it.

After the money is received, however, Teheran will be sorely tempted to cheat (as it has done with previous agreements) since it, too, recognizes that the re-imposition of sanction (“snapback”) is a hollow threat. 

As a result, the likely consequence will be a delay in months, not a decade, in the regime’s progress toward the possession of nuclear weapons.

But thanks to Obama, a brief delay is all the world is likely to see. 

I recognize that’s scant satisfaction, but it’s also better than nothing. 

When the agreement’s violations occur, the U.S. will be free to respond – but it will not be able to do so until a new president takes office.  Even Hillary would not be the sap that Obama is.

Then, America can pursue firm policies against Iran underpinned by credible threats of military force.  The fact that precious time will have been lost in the effort is to be sorely lamented.  But there is, in my opinion, little choice but to make the best of a bad deal.