The US This Week: "The Mess"

This week's topic could really be this month's topic, and it's a doozy. In this post's title, I referred to it as "The Mess." I figured that "Israel, Iran, and the Different Branches of the Federal Government" was a bit too long of a title. And that is what this situation boils down to, in essence. These past weeks have highlighted the partisan divide when it comes to foreign policy, and it's very difficult for anybody to speak of this matter in an objective manner. Most people aren't trying to be objective, though...and I'll be doing my best.

The mess started a few weeks ago, when Congress - and by Congress, I mean Congress's Republican majority - invited Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, to speak before a joint session of the two houses. Why? To offer his take on the negotiations with Iran, on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. "We've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," Netanyahu said in his speech. "Well, this is a bad deal." Of course, Netanyahu is biased on the matter, given the insignificant fact that many Iranians would like to see Israel blotted off the map. In the past, the relationship between Israel and Iran was a neutral - even positive at times - one, but the two countries have been increasingly hostile ever since the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970's, which marks the period where Iran's relationship with the United States took a drastic turn for the worse. Iran's last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was vehemently anti-American and a huge supporter of his country's nuclear program. Iran's current leader, Hassan Rouhani, was initially thought to be more moderate than his predecessor. I think many of us would agree that he is, but not by very much. Rouhani is more of a diplomat than a warmonger, by all accounts - but that doesn't mean he's our friend. Under Rouhani, Iran has bulked up its military capacity. He views the United States as a global bully that needs to be defeated in the diplomatic battlefield. And Congressional Republicans and their constituents think that Obama's negotiations with Iran are the equivalent of a surrender.

Netanyahu's speech is only the beginning of the congressional Republicans' self-appointed battle with Iran. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) drafted a letter to Iran, a letter signed by 47 of the senate's 54 Republicans. The letter essentially stated that any agreement Obama made with Iran could be nullified by his successor, or the Congress. The Senate, as we all know, has the constitutional authority to ratify or nullify treaties. Undoubtedly, many will argue that an arms agreement is a form of a treaty - with justification, I would say. The framers and the founding fathers would certainly have seen any such action of the sort as a treaty. And if it hasn't dawned on you by now, Cotton is virtually nothing like Arkansas's most famous son. He served as a Captain in the 101st Airborne in Iraq and Afghanistan. His views on Guantanamo Bay are that it has only one issue: too few inmates. Cotton's critics quip that the Senate's first veteran of the War on Terror believes that the US is already at war with Iran. Perhaps they have a point, but here's the catch - doesn't Iran believe that it's already at war with the US? Rouhani referred to the diplomatic "war" with the US as a form of Jihad. Iran has bulked up its military considerably in the past few years. It is, for all intents and purposes, a military power. Among the only things the Islamic Republic lacks, at this stage, are nuclear weapons.

The partisan divide is fully in play here. The Democrats want to make peace with the rising power of the Middle East, even if it means risking the chance that Iran may develop nuclear weapons. The Republicans have no intention of letting Iran develop nuclear anything, even if it means coming across as the bully Iran thinks we are. Democrats think Republicans acted appallingly by warning Iran that Obama's actions in forming a compromise can be refuted. Republicans think that Democrats are going Chamberlain's way and trying to appease a hostile rising power. It's left versus right, compromise versus strength, appeasement versus tenacity.

So where do I stand on all of this? Before I discuss that matter, let's examine two key points: what do we stand to gain from any compromise with Iran? And what do we stand to gain from forcing it into submission? Well, each one has its pros and cons, the pros of one being related to the cons of the other. If we compromise with Iran, we can boost our credibility in the Middle East as something more than an oppressor from overseas. If we refuse to compromise, that credibility will decrease (or remain the same). But if we do choose to compromise, we risk the possibility that Iran, a nation which is extremely hostile to us (and even more so to our closest ally in the region, Israel), will develop nuclear weapons. If we refuse to compromise and clamp down on Iran, we can eliminate that chance before it's even born. At the end of the day, the individual's take on the matter should boil down to whether or not they think Iran can be trusted not to use their nuclear program to develop weapons of mass destruction. And I do not trust Iran at all. I don't trust Rouhani, and I've already asserted that he's one of Iran's more moderate leaders. What would happen if a man of Ahmadinejad's ilk comes to power in Iran in the next few years, with their nuclear program in full swing? Any compromise will leave Iran's nuclear program open, and give them the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction. And in my eyes, that risk is unacceptable. I believe we can all recall what happened the last time the US had probable cause to believe a hostile Middle Eastern nation had WMDs. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have never been on friendly terms (I would hardly consider Iran-Contras "friendly"). And hey - we are a superpower. We crushed the Empire of Japan, signed Nazi Germany's death warrant, founded the United Nations, relinquished much of our empire, and protected the world. For a time, at least. We've had dark splotches, of course, and plenty of them -Vietnam, Cuba, and our economic imperialism in South America come to mind. But in recent years, we've made an effort to do what's right. We routed Saddam Hussein's army to free Kuwait from his tyranny, liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban, and routed Saddam Hussein's army again. Of course, as I alluded to earlier, the dark splotches persisted here - the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban's continued resistance cost America and the nations of the Middle East dearly, and the removal of Saddam paved the route for ISIS. It's a screwed-up world we live in, and we've plenty some of the screwing. But we are still the most powerful nation in this screwed-up world, and that doesn't mean nothing. We ultimately don't have to compromise with Iran at all. Through economic and political actions, we can force them into submission. Is it bullying? Absolutely. Is it imperialistic? Arguably. But will it make the world a safer place for the people who call it home? Almost definitely. It will cost no American or Iranian lives, and not too much money - we have other trading partners, should we implement sanctions on Iran, as do they. Western sanctions would hurt them, but they wouldn't cripple or kill.  Many Iranians already hate us. Giving in won't make the Iranian people as a group like us - in most cases, it will only hurt us. The Nazi regime gloated as the nations of Western Europe bowed to their desires. Why should we believe Iran, a nation with plenty of human rights violations under its belt, would behave differently?

That entire paragraph essentially boils down to this one point: I don't trust Iran in its current state with its current leadership, and I see no reason for the US to compromise with it. It's a big gamble for us, and we stand to gain very little. In my eyes, the risks far outweigh the potential rewards.