Right Web

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

Why WaPo Gets the Iran Sanctions Fight Wrong

In a recent editorial, the Washington Post tacitly endorsed Congress’ push for additional sanctions on Iran while failing to make clear to its readers all the risks this poses.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

With the fight over whether to pile on more Iran sanctions heating up in D.C., the Washington Post has weighed in. It will not come as a surprise to regular readers of the editorial board that the paper is holding its usual liberal-hawk line: the editors tacitly endorse Congress’s push for more pressure on Iran.

Their reasoning is two-fold. The latter argument has to do with the imprisoned Post Tehran correspondent, Jason Rezaian, whom I consider a friend as well as an exemplary colleague. By the Post‘s lights, Jason’s ordeal is a provocation and an attempt to use the Iranian-American reporter as a pawn in the nuclear talks. Though that fact has not been established, it is, as the Post editors note, a conclusion that is difficult to escape. Let me, then, add my voice again to the chorus calling for Jason’s unconditional release from unjust imprisonment.

The problem with the Post‘s editorial, however, arises from the line it draws from Jason’s detention and other alleged Iranian provocations—namely, the announcement of plans to build two more nuclear plants—to Congress’s proposed sanctions. “If tactics such as that,” writes the Post, “do not ruin the chance of an agreement, then neither should action by Congress.”

Except that the proposed Congressional action would be a direct affront to the twice-extended interim deal struck between Iran and world powers in November 2013. That deal, known as the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), calls on the U.S. and its partners—France, the U.K., Russia, China and Germany, the so-called P5+1—to “pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s crude oil sales.” And yet the new sanctions proposed by hawkish senators would precisely be an effort in this direction—while neither Jason’s detention nor the new nuclear facilities would violate the letter of the deal (as the Post itself acknowledges in the latter case). That’s why President Obama has already threatened to veto new sanctions legislation.

“The logic of that argument has always been a little hard to follow, since the measure the Senate is likely to take up,” the Post comments, “would mandate new sanctions only if Iran failed to accept an agreement by the June 30 deadline established in the ongoing talks.” The editors go on to note that, in the face of Iran’s actions, “the Obama administration argues that countervailing pressure would somehow be a deal breaker.”

But this is not the Obama administration’s argument: it is the Iranians’. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was clear on this way back in December 2013, when the journalist Robin Wright, for an interview in Time Magazine, asked, “What happens if Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they don’t go into effect for six months?” Zarif was unequivocal: “The entire deal is dead.”

Perhaps the Post editors think, more than a year later, that this paradigm no longer applies. Or maybe they think the Iranians are bluffing. Either way, it’s dishonest by omission to pretend that Obama’s reticence to see new sanctions emanates from some unfounded overabundance of caution, rather than the on-the-record responses of Iran’s top negotiator to precisely the question of delayed-trigger sanctions.

The Post owes it to its readers to make this issue in the ongoing sanctions fight clear. And the editorial board ought to come out and say it if they don’t think the Iranians’ threat to back out of talks is serious—and then lay out all the attendant risks of calling their bluff.

As for Jason’s plight, his fate may be unjustly tied to the nuclear talks, but prematurely killing diplomacy certainly won’t help secure his freedom.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share