fbpx

Support the Iran deal — the deal is done, deal with it

[additional-authors]
July 23, 2015

In 1937, Dale Carnegie wrote the seminal classic, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”  It is a concept worthy of revisiting as the American Jewish community joins an unwinnable battle that will embolden its enemies and depletes its bench of hard fought alliances here and on the global stage.  We are not influencing anyone and we are infuriating friends, all while expending hard-earned political currency.

Imagine a regime whose rhetoric calls for the obliteration of your nation.  Imagine further that it stands mere months away from having nuclear capability.  While the sanctions have inflicted economic pain, the coalition sanctioning the regime is weakening because some nations want to trade and already are finding ways to do so.  Now imagine that you have the opportunity to defer the acquisition of nuclear technology for a period of years.  What should you do?

I have been negotiating “deals”, albeit in a different context and with different consequences, for 35 years.  Within the first month after beginning my first job as an attorney, I learned a few basic rules of engagement.  One should negotiate a tough deal and not let on that the deal itself is the objective, one draws “red lines” on several key principles from which you will not waver, one must be willing to get up from the table.  All these tenets of “Negotiation 101” were abandoned by an administration hell-bent on shaking up the Middle East.  I don’t fault the administration for trying—I applaud it—but I fault it for doing so in such a desperate, weak manner.  That said, we have an agreement.  The world is prepared to move on.

Those with legitimate concerns about the deal’s details (and there are good reasons for these concerns) describe two possible outcomes.  The first is a world that removes sanctions, permits Iran to retain its nuclear capabilities, has an unsatisfying verification system and will leave Iran in 10 years with a short period before “break out” potential.  With sanctions lifted, the Iranians will use some portion of the money that is freed up to finance the bad guys in the Middle East and, at some point in the future, possess a weapon that will enhance its influence and support of those who would do harm to Israel and the United States.

The second world described by the proponents of this fight is one in which the Jewish community and its ever-shrinking supporters prevail upon Congress to emasculate the President, create a Constitutional crisis, miraculously prevail upon our partner nations (several of whom can hardly be described as “friends) to walk back the existing deal and successfully persuade the Iranians to reopen negotiations and acquiesce on points that have been discussed ad nauseum since the administration of George W. Bush, which began this process.

But there is a far more dangerous third potential result of the attempt to kill the deal.  That is a world in which the deal falls apart, America’s influence in the region wanes, Israel is blamed, Jews in the United States and Israel are marginalized (or blamed), and the Iranian regime accelerates its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, achieving greater clout in the Middle East.  At that point the options decrease to a military option or acceptance of the then status quo.

That’s the situation that we’re in and, as much as it pains me to say it, we should voice our concerns, establish our clear reticence and regret that the agreement’s negotiations were so poorly handled, hold our noses and proceed.  The time to influence the terms of this agreement passed years ago, back when we should have been concentrating on a few key “red lines”, rather than the wholesale rejection of any treaty that leaves Iran with any of its demands, as given voice most clearly by Prime Minister Netanyahu.  As much as the administration bobbled the ball on its negotiations, Israel’s friends, unable to find a middle ground, misread the circumstances, inflated their own power and started believing their own rhetoric, rather than trying to massage the terms of the deal as it was being negotiated. 

I’m not naïve enough to join J Street’s dancing in the streets over how fantastic this deal is.  It’s not.  Yet it’s good enough. I’m not prepared to “go to the mat’ in a losing battle, supported by AIPAC and other well meaning supporters of Israel, expending heaven knows how much hard won political currency, in a losing battle.  There are seven good reasons to support the deal:

1.     Iran is close to the bomb already.  If negotiations fail and an agreement is not reached, there is little doubt that Iran will reengage its race toward a bomb.  At that point, there will be but two options—preventing them militarily or standing by. Neither is an acceptable option. With Israel unable to deny Iran the capability and the United States unwilling to engage in another war, prevention is unlikely.

2.     This is a multi-lateral agreement.  This is not simply a bilateral agreement that allows for one party, the United States, to return to the table and ask for more.  There are five other countries involved on our side.  And some of them are itching for the opening of the Iranian markets.  No one is willing to go back to the negotiating table.  If we don’t go forward with lifting the sanctions, the others will lift what they can and trade barriers will fall.

3.     The sanctions are only partially working.  Are they inflicting economic damage on the Iranian economy?  Sure.  Are they loosening the grip of the regime on the reins of power?  No way.  Are they preventing Iran from proceeding toward nuclear capability?  Only temporarily…only while engaged in negotiations toward a deal.  Either a deal is made or they will just rush back to seek nuclear capability.

4.     Congress is powerless to prevent the lifting of the sanctions.  Congressional approval was required to impose the sanctions; their approval is not needed to lift them.  Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel in the George W. Bush administration, has written an excellent piece in Lawfare on the legal basis of the President to act unilaterally under the Iran Review Act and pursuant to long-standing Presidential prerogative in the non-treaty arena, including its voting on Security Council resolutions since the UN’s inception.  It is a mistake to believe that the administration will not act to remove the sanctions and the sole avenue available will be to challenge the President’s actions in an unpleasant court fight.

5.     While the deal runs a risk of nuclear proliferation in the region, having no deal ensures it.  Unless we are willing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, it most assuredly will come.  So if there is no deal, nations concerned about Iran most assuredly will be forced to pursue nuclear security. No agreement increases the risk of escalation and war; it does not decrease it.

6.     The President cannot be undermined.  As someone who did not vote for Obama, and someone who believes that under his leadership we have violated fundamental tenets of negotiation, we have little choice as a nation but to support our President.

7.     It’s good for the Jews.  This deal is a fait accompli.  For as much as supporters (rightly) beat their chests and warn the world of Iranian duplicity and the need for vigilance, it is time for a bit of realpolitik. Ambassador William Burns, himself a negotiator of the interim agreement beginning in the Bush administration in 2008, conceded on NPR this week the challenges of the agreement, but believes that diligence can ensure Iranian compliance.  We cannot be perceived by the international community and, perhaps more importantly, here at home, as undermining a chance for peace and undermining our President.  We cannot be perceived as “putting Israel first” and of politicizing the process.

This has been politicized enough and fought enough.  We should support the deal because it offers a chance for peace, provides greater opportunity for transparency than we currently have, slows Iran down and, perhaps, offers a different partner in the Middle East ten years from now when the opportunity to “break out” presents itself   If we’ve learned anything in the 14 years since September 11th, the world can change a lot in a few years.  Better no bomb today, some chance to prevent it in the future and a hope and, yes, a prayer, that the world will change sufficiently in the next decade that the chance that the Middle East will experience nuclear proliferation will abate.

In times like these, those with an historic bent look for precedents and metaphors.  Those urging rejection of the deal, powered by insecurity, politics, anger and, yes, good faith, invoke the image of Neville Chamberlain and “peace for our time.”  Lest we forget, this nation was forged through George Washington’s carefully orchestrated parries and retreats. But perhaps the better metaphor is the slow, patient, containment of the Soviet Union, over decades, through hard fought negotiation, talk, treaties and vigilance.


Glenn Sonnenberg is president of Stephen Wise Temple. He also serves on the boards of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles and Bet Tzedek — the House of Justice. He is a former member of the Board of Trustees of USC.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Print Issue: Got College? | Mar 29, 2024

With the alarming rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, choosing where to apply has become more complicated for Jewish high school seniors. Some are even looking at Israel.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.