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.

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

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


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.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share