So Much for Détente

This probably should have been included in my If only… post. I honestly don’t see how anyone could have taken the Obama Administration’s claims about the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran being the beginning of some sort of détente seriously. The Iranians got what they wanted out of the agreement and that’s that. As I’ve said all along, they’re shrewd bargainers.

The editors of the Washington Post apparently did:

AS THEY concluded the nuclear deal with Iran in July, President Obama and Secretary of State John F. Kerry repeatedly suggested that it could open the way to cooperation with Tehran in resolving regional conflicts, beginning with the civil war in Syria. They also promised the United States would push back if Iran instead stepped up its aggression. Just three months later, Iran’s most notorious general is overseeing a new offensive by thousands of Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese fighters aimed at recapturing the Syrian city of Aleppo from rebel forces, including some backed by the United States. Mr. Obama shows no sign of responding.

going on to catalogue what’s happened since the agreement was signed:

The attack is one of several provocative steps Tehran has taken as the nuclear deal has begun to come into effect. The same day the accord was debated by its parliament this month, the regime test-fired a nuclear-capable missile, violating a U.N. Security Council resolution. The White House acknowledged the infraction but pointed out that it was outside the bounds of the nuclear agreement.

Also that day, Iranian television reported that The Post’s Jason Rezaian had been convicted on espionage charges after a closed trial. The administration condemned the verdict.

They shouldn’t anticipate any “response” by the Administration. President Obama got what he wanted out of the agreement, too. His poll numbers are up. Surely we can all take satisfaction from that.

12 comments… add one
  • michael reynolds Link

    The deal was about nukes. We got what we wanted – within reason. But I haven’t seen anyone in the administration saying we’d achieved peace in our times. You frequently point out that Russia has legitimate (or at least understandable) interests in Ukraine and Syria. Iran, too, has interests it will pursue.

    I don’t think the US has, or should have, a dog in the Shia-Sunni fight. Putin evidently thinks he wants to break off a piece of that and jump in, and Iran evidently thinks it’s more important to prop up Assad than to stiff-arm the Russians.

    But in the end, they are doing our dirty work for us. Assad is no threat to Israel or Saudi Arabia or Jordan, while ISIS is. If Russia and Iran want to kill ISIS, fine by me. And if they want to kill those “other” rebels too, the bulk of which are Al Qaeda or Qaeda-related, again I’m not seeing the problem. In fact, I think it’s rather sweet of Putin to throw himself in front of us and make himself target #1 for every Sunni jihadi on earth.

    Let’s see how smart the Russians and Iranians look in a year or two.

  • It certainly didn’t make Congress happy, Michael. Almost to the man, Democrat or Republican, they pointed out their dissatisfaction with limiting the agreement to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

  • Guarneri Link

    I’ve not been impressed that adherence to representations matter much to this administration. “If you like your doctor…..lower your premiums”…….anyone?

    I know that in my world I couldn’t represent to my investors that I had a fully negotiated P&S contract (price, WC adjustment, R&W, indemnities etc) on reasonable commercial terms and have the other side immediately violating everything but the conveyance of stock and get away with “the deal was about change of ownership, we got what we wanted.” It would basically be malpractice.

    On a separate note, I read today that the (vast) majority of the ObamaCare sign ups – running as I understand it about 50% of the predicted pace and 20-25% of the vital need quoted during its political sale – were really medicaid expansion. A program that is a mess. If even remotely accurate it lays waste to the notion that “ObamaCare is working as intended.” Let’s not even go to cost control.

    I think we could all agree that the issues of portability and pre-existing conditions needed to be addressed. But this program is like a chain saw taken to the task of fine woodworking. Almost makes you question the real motivations.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Dave:

    As you may have noticed this Congress does not subscribe to the notion that politics is the art of the possible.

  • I would add that the agreement assumes follow-up agreements and that the Administration said as much any number of times.

    I wonder if the Administration would have been as happy with the agreement as a final step rather than a first step.

  • Andy Link

    I think the administration was hoping for detente, but it’s clear that isn’t going to happen and, IMO, it never had much chance of success. The advantage for us in Iran is that the actual people are some of the most pro-Western in the Islamic world – unlike, say, Saudi Arabia. Over the long term (20+ years), this might pan out. There’s a lot of uncertainty.

    I still think the Iran deal is worth it on its own merits, assuming its fully implemented.

  • steve Link

    We are not best buddies with Iran in 3 months so this is a failure? Anyway, as Michael noted, Iran is not being aggressive towards us. If they want to kill ISIS, that is fine with me. The trial thing is a non sequitur. The missile launch was not covered in the deal. I can’t really see why we would expect them to do whatever we like that was not in the treaty. The nuclear deal is good and was worth it for its own sake, if it implements, as Andy noted.

    Also, Iran has its own hardliners, its Tea Party as it were. They think they gave up too much. I am guessing the missile launch was aimed at appeasing them as much as anything. Meh. If detente is to occur, I have been pretty sure all along it would take a while.

    Drew- You need a better analogy. I will help. You negotiate a contract. The other side carries out its side of the contract to the letter. Actually, the other party takes steps that make life more difficult for your competitor, at no charge. You make billions. However, the other party did not throw in a free toaster. For that you have committed malpractice. Glad to help and no need to say thank you.

    Steve

  • Guarneri Link

    That’s a fantasy, steve. No thank you warranted.

  • Modulo Myself Link

    Well, the Post’s idea of detente is apparently Iran should disarm and refrain from any state-like activities, including intervening on the side of an ally in a vicious civil war near its border. Meanwhile, the US, under the same arrangement, should be allowed to bomb this same ally and support its overthrow by assembled ‘moderates’. No questions asked. I can’t imagine why Iran isn’t leaping forward to embrace these rational terms. Perhaps they are evil.

    Meanwhile, Israel, our super-sane ally, is now Holocaust-denial curious. Looking forward to the convergence of American and Israeli right opinion, where a common Islamic enemy convinced Hitler to disarm the Jews. It really makes you think about the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t it?

  • steve:

    As I’m sure you can see if you reflect on it, this

    We are not best buddies with Iran in 3 months so this is a failure?

    is practically a textbook example of the strawman fallacy (creating an extreme version of the point and attacking it rather than addressing the point itself). There are two things that are quite clear:

    1. The Obama Administration tried to sell the limitation of the agreement to nuclear issues by painting the agreement as the first step in some sort of detente.
    2. Events are not presently moving in that direction.

    Those are simply statements of fact. Could things change over time? Sure. Anything could happen. I think the greater likelihood is that the Obama Administration miscalculated.

  • jan Link

    “We are not best buddies with Iran in 3 months so this is a failure? “

    Then, lets give it 3 years. What will Iran look like after this span of time? How cooperative will it be to the West, Israel or any other nation it has spewed death threats towards?

    Oh wait…Obama will be out of office by then and it will be another president’s headache. And, I bet if such a deal goes south, it will not be considered an “inherited” headache either, like Obama has endlessly referred to the circumstances assumed by him when he entered office.

  • steve Link

    “is practically a textbook example of the strawman fallacy ”

    I thought it was sarcasm. Will have to put in alerts. At any rate, as I said, Iran has its own internal politics. After giving up too much, from their POV, I would expect it would be quite a while until they wanted to do anything else. jan suggests 3 years. I don’t know how long it will take, especially given that we have barely talked since 1979.

    Steve

Leave a Comment