The Iran Deal: Forget a “Philosophical” Foreign Policy
The guiding principle by which a nation should deal with the world is national self-interest.
Before I argue, as I will, for supporting (for now) “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” on Iran’s program of nuclear development, announced April 2 in Lausanne, Switzerland, let me put my ideological cards on the table. The guiding principle by which a nation should deal with the world is national self-interest. Our principled basis for judging the morality and even legitimacy of other governments is the same standard of protection of individual rights by which we judge our own government. These two broad guidelines tell us what countries are our potentially closest allies, and. broadly, how to deal with them: by mutual exchange to mutual benefit of the national self-interest of all nations involved.
But philosophy tells us almost nothing about how to make foreign policy in dealing with the endless problems that arise among nations. Foreign policy is a specialized discipline, and study, of enormous complexity. Within the most general principles, shaping policy demands almost infinite flexibility (as does, say, building an international corporation).
The newly announced framework for ensuring that Iran abides by its steadily reiterated pledge not to develop nuclear weapons is a case in point. Iran, at this time, is an enemy of the United States. Even as the framework was announced, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was drawing applause from an Iranian audience of his followers by saying “Death to America.” Iran’s government is an authoritarian theocracy, its practice of Islam is noxious, and Mr. Khamenei calls Israel the “Zionist Satan.”
And so, doesn’t it follow from America’s self-interest and an opposing national leader mouthing “Death to America”, that—far from reaching a complicated, endlessly debated agreement, America should declare war on Iran, begin preparations to attack and invade, and not stop until the government of America-hating Khamenei has been overthrown as we overthrew the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan in World War II?
We never went to war with Soviet Russia, sworn enemy of America and the whole free world. We have not attacked maniacally dangerous, nuclear-armed North Korea.
In fact, no such thing follows from our national self-interest. That principle tells us virtually nothing about what to do. Just as the indisputably illegitimate totalitarian government of “Red China,” and its seething hostility toward the United states in the late 1950s and 1960s, told us nothing about what to do. We never went to war with Soviet Russia, sworn enemy of America and the whole free world. We have not attacked maniacally dangerous, nuclear-armed North Korea. We lodged sanctions against India and Pakistan to stop their developing the bomb, but both did. We threatened sanctions against Israel, which went ahead and manufactured some 100 nuclear bombs—still kept secret from the world.
Reiterating the condemnation of Iran’s support for militancy in the Middle East through Hezbollah and Hamas, and its support for the brutal government of Syria, solidifies our estimate of Iran’s government and our calculation of our degree of hostility toward it. But reiterating them is irrelevant in commenting upon the proposed agreement with Iran. The reason is that our firmly condemnatory position toward Iran’s government, and our determination to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons, hasn’t prevented Iran from moving forward with very significant advances in the size and quality of its nuclear technology in crucial directions. Nor, most emphatically, have our sanctions and those of our allies blocked their technology; it has been developed and enlarged during the sanctions.
And so, America could continue sanctions—and let Iran continue its rapid nuclear advances (which it repeatedly claims are peaceful)—or move toward war with Iran, a well-armed, determined nation of 80 million people which, when attacked by Iraq at the urging of the United States, with chemical weapons we supplied, expended almost a million lives instead of surrendering or backing off.
To attack the proposed agreement by calling President Obama “delusional” and all the other names, overlooks that this agreement is between America, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, on the one hand (not simply “Mr. Obama”), and Iran, on the other. To focus only on Mr. Obama’s supposed psychology and motives gets us nowhere.
And what is the basis for the sweeping, unsubstantiated declaration that the proposed agreement plays the United States for a fool and a dupe?
And what is the basis for the sweeping, unsubstantiated declaration that the proposed agreement plays the United States for a fool and a dupe? In fact, observers from foreign ministers to disarmament experts and many others greeted the terms of the initial framework with uniform surprise that Iran had agreed to dismantle, discontinue, or export major elements of the nuclear technology and materials it has developed. The numbers are there to see, if, indeed, the agreement is completed and signed within this framework. And, above all, observers have reacted with almost shock, and considerable satisfaction, at what they see as unprecedented concessions by Iran in terms of inspections and investigations to keep it honest. To dismiss this hard-won agreement as useless while citing no alternative or recommended additional provisions—and how more might actually be obtained—gets us…again…nowhere.
Every major spy agency and technology in the West, plus Russia and China, will be intently focused on Iran’s compliance. So will the international press. As sanctions are lifted, assuming the framework becomes an agreement, the Iranian people—as their initial response suggests—will become adamantly opposed to risking have them re-imposed. Indeed, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, initiating and supporting the negotiations on the Iranian side, won election by promising to get the sanctions lifted. And did so in 100 days.
Articles that grandly and sweepingly appear to deduce American foreign policy directions from broad philosophical principles, and assessments based on them, are unhelpful—or worse. So are critiques of foreign policy initiatives based on Mr. Obama’s supposed flawed character and motives.
Mr. Obama is forced to wind down a war America cannot win in Afghanistan and to cope with the disintegration of Iraq less than a decade after another war America could not win. He has been realistic and determined in securing a possible agreement that would keep us from being dragged by Israel’s Netanyahu government into an infinitely worse war in Iran. It makes the prospect of a Republican president (say, Jeb Bush) who might succeed Mr. Obama, downright disheartening and frightening.
About the Author: Walter Donway
« Nice Work If You Can Get It Detective Byomkesh Bakshy: India’s Answer to Sherlock Holmes »
