Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Former Bush Diplomats Push Back on Criticism of Iran Deal

Prominent former officials and diplomats, including from the George W. Bush administration, as well as nuclear experts, have all come out in support of the Iran nuclear deal.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

LobeLog

Two senior retired diplomats warned Friday that the U.S. would isolate itself from a global consensus if Congress rejected the nuclear agreement concluded between the P5+1 and Iran earlier this month.

In a conference call held by the Truman National Security Project, Ryan Crocker and Daniel Kurtzer also made it clear that they see the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the best opportunity for curbing Iran’s nuclear activities and avoiding a military confrontation. Crocker served as George W. Bush’s ambassador to Pakistan and then Iraq, and briefly as Barack Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan. Kurtzer served as US ambassador to Israel during George W. Bush’s first term.

Calling the deal “a major agreement” that positions the United States to “reestablish its leadership” in the Middle East and the world, Crocker argued that “you do have to look at alternatives, and I don’t see any good ones out there.” He suggested that, if Congress rejected the deal over a presidential veto, such an outcome “would be just fine with the Iranians.” Tehran would be free to resume unfettered and unsupervised nuclear activities while enjoying the benefits of a breakdown in the multilateral sanctions regime that helped bring them to the negotiating table in the first place. Crocker’s remarks echoed earlier comments by Truman’s executive director, Michael Breen, who contended that a failure to pass the deal would leave the US with a choice to either “acquiesce” to the idea of a nuclear Iran or go to war to prevent that outcome.

Crocker said that the current moment recalled the 1991 Gulf War “when the United States truly led an international coalition to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.” He added: “What we’ve got now is an international consensus to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem effectively by not going to war.”

On the subject of the likelihood that the sanctions regime would fall apart in the wake of a congressional rejection of the deal, Crocker addressed the deal’s opponents bluntly. In that scenario, Crocker said

We [the US] would see a complete turning of the tables, with the U.S. being isolated and Iran being part of the broader consensus. For many Iranians, this agreement was Plan B, not Plan A. Plan A was for the negotiations to break down in a manner that the global community would blame us for the failure in which case they [Iran] would’ve kept their nuclear program and seen sanctions collapse — ..having their cake and eating it, too.

He cited Monday’s unanimous UN Security Council vote in favor of the agreement as evidence that “there is a virtually complete international consensus” about the deal. “If we [the US] decide that we are not going to support the agreement, then we’re alone,” a turn of events that Crocker argued would be a “huge triumph for Iran and our other adversaries. The chances that the Security Council or the international community would say ‘We got it, let’s vote for stronger sanctions,’ [as argued by the deal’s critics]– that is fantasy.”

Kurtzer maintained that the debate around the deal in America has been colored by the perception that Israelis are completely aligned against it, when “the fact is, there is no single view in Israel about this agreement.” As Kurtzer noted, several former high-ranking officials in the Israeli security establishment have come out firmly in favor of the Iran deal. Former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy, for example, wrote in an op-ed for Ynet that “Iran made concessions in a series of critical matters.” And Amos Yadlin, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, told Al-Monitor in April that, compared to the status quo or the “no deal” alternative, “the agreement provides quite a good package” of constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

Kurtzer also questioned the logic of critics who insist that Iran wouldn’t necessarily react in a provocative way if Washington were unable to implement the deal due to congressional rejection. The agreement requires Tehran to drastically reduce the number of its working centrifuges and ship out almost all of its enriched uranium stockpile so that it would be at least one year from nuclear “break-out” status. But in the event of congressional rejection, Kurtzer predicted that Iran would almost certainly retain its current capability of achieving “break-out” in two months or less. “That’s the part [of the criticism of the deal] that makes no sense to anybody looking at the agreement,” he said.

Although opposition to the Iran deal is at a fever pitch on Capitol Hill, support is growing for the deal outside of the halls of Congress. Crocker and Kurtzer were among the over 100 former US diplomats who signed on to a letter supporting the JCPOA written by the Iran Project on July 16. One of that letter’s signers was Nicholas Burns, who, as George W. Bush’s undersecretary of state for political affairs, helped to draft some of the first nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. In The Financial Times on July 14, he wrote that the JCPOA “is a sensible agreement and far preferable to an Iran unfettered and ever closer to a nuclear weapon.” On July 20, a bipartisan group of 60 former national security officials and legislators signed a similarly supportive letter also written by the Iran Project. Today, Kurtzer and Burns joined a group of former US diplomats, including five former US ambassadors to Israel, in sending another letter in support of the deal to both houses of Congress. Arms control experts have largely supported the deal as well, including Gary Samore, the president of the otherwise anti-deal organization United Against a Nuclear Iran. Last but hopefully not least, a majority of the American public also supports this deal, despite deep skepticism that it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and strong disapproval of the way the Obama administration handled the negotiations.

Republicans in Congress may have their “minds made up” about the Iran deal already, as The New York Times writes, and they undoubtedly have many reasons, possibly billions of them, for coming to that conclusion. But they, and undecided congressional Democrats, may want to stop and listen to what experts outside of Congress, not to mention the American people, are saying about it.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share