Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If There’s no Iran Deal, Then What?
A flurry of leaks and news reports seems designed to prepare us for the collapse of the Iran negotiations. We’re being told that Obama is “no longer sanguine” about the prospects.
Russian state media (for what that’s worth) reported that a senior official from the group of six told Zarif that if he didn’t want to reach a deal, they could end the talks right then and there. Iranian state media (for what that’s worth) identified that official as the Entity-Formerly-Known-as-the-European-Union foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini. Zarif apparently barked, “Never try to threaten the Iranians.” Lavrov apparently added, “Nor the Russians.” What the Americans said went un-leaked, but there are rumors that Kerry was heard screaming at Zarif, and that his aide had to tip-toe in to warn him that everyone in the hotel could hear it.
Doesn’t sound as if things are trending group-hugwise.
Negotiators, reports Bloomberg, are feeling claustrophobic. “It feels as if we’re locked in all day,” a Western official complained. (CNN failed to get the hint. It’s running this story front and center: Why your next vacation could be in Iran.)
According to Congress, the Iran deal deadline is 11:59 p.m., tonight. Legally speaking, if there’s no deal by midnight, it goes to 60 days of review.
We now know that Iran is “at most” two or three months from the ability to produce the Bomb. Two months is roughly 60 days.
Should the deal collapse, then what?
Published in Foreign Policy, General
Yes but we aren’t a small country. Maybe Iran is a power compared to Kuwait, but that was already true. Iran having one nuke will do nothing to prevent us from bombing them back to the stone age if we so choose. You may now object with, “But what about North Korea?” Well what keeps us from going after North Korea isn’t their formidable army, it is the fact that they are backed by China. Does Iran have some other power backing it up in a similar fashion?
I think if the deal collapses Obama’s bubble will burst in the short term as even some Democrats will abandon him as a failure. If Iran tests a bomb before Obama leaves office it guarantees a Republican president in 2016. That is it politically here in America.
In the Middle East it might lead the various factions of Radical Islam to consolidate in a working partnership with Iran and bring their focus back to attacks on the West. Iran with a nuclear umbrella will be very tempting to shelter under. If that happens we might see a more effective insurgency type war in Europe and increase efforts to get attacks going in the US. The goal here but be to further isolate Israel for a concerted attack on it with the hope of destroying it. Iran might offer a Munich like deal where if we just give them Israel Europe and America could have peace. I am not sure what will happen be it will be terrible there.
To prevent my above scenario many different countries will pursue a nuclear weapon if that drives is allowed to go its course and five countries in the Middle East end up with a bomb I would suspect that with in ten years it would be very likely that we would see a nuclear device go off in the region. Then all hell breaks loose.
We have to stop Iran from getting the bomb we have to stop them.
Best case scenario: Israel intercepts an incoming Iranian missile-launched bomb, and retaliates with nuclear weapons, sending the Iranian nuclear program (and everything else in Iran) back to the stone age.
Worst case scenario: Iran smuggles nuclear weapons into Gaza, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, and detonates them simultaneously. Obama (who survives the attack by virtue of being out playing golf somewhere) sends Kerry to engage in more talks.
“One nuke does not a power make” – um, yes it does. I think you mean it doesn’t make a nation into a superpower. It does, however, give them leverage an order of magnitude greater than they’d possess without it.
Military action is always predicated on your qualifier, “if we so choose.” If they gain one nuclear weapon, the sphere of actions they can take or threaten without incurring military action against them grows tremendously.
Let’s just dispense with the argument that a limited Iranian nuclear capacity isn’t worth pursuing on their side and opposing on ours – that’s silly.
Pretty sure we’re talking about different things. Or were.
I think that outlines the situation pretty well. Arguments that assume a conventional idea of a desirable outcome aren’t relevant. They deny reality and make a set of obviously counterfactual assumptions to maintain a frame that supports the actions and outcomes they’d prefer.
Tom “Dixie Chick” Cotton then has to come up with a plan.
He was Mr. Big Shot when it came to breaking down the talks, now let’s see if he can build something, which is a lot harder.
He won’t. He’s a law breaking poser.
Kerry statement on Iran expected at 1:00 pm EST.
Polish up all the Munich analogies.
I think maybe Iran has the bomb. Then negotiations would only be a way of easing this world of ours into the realization.
If Iran does not have the bomb, then negotiations seem to be about easing the move to a world with some more nuclear proliferation. America has lived with the Norks going nuclear. Apparently, some think, a nuclear Iran would not really be so bad.
(I think this talk about fundamental transformation is really wrong. It misunderstands the way Mr. Obama seems to conduct policy–he never intended events in the Middle East to go the way they have gone & would rather they were otherwise–he overstates the possibilities of peace, but he’s got an administration trying to keep things from going to the devil; & misremembers America’s past; Dem presidents have long been weak-willed. & GOP presidents, too, have lived with nuclear proliferation.)
Now, as to Iran, I think they do resemble the Norks–they are pretty reasonable about their foreign policy–they know Western powers are easily pushed around & politically divided. Like everyone who has to confront America, they have decided that America is as weak as she looks. So–evil–but not without the cunning of evil, nor do they seem inclined to start an official war, so that suggests further limits on their foreign policy.
Yeah, let’s see if he can build a bigger fire in the living room. I spit at talks with Iran. And if by “breaking down the talks” you mean making clear that a runaway President with no checks or balances still standing *still* doesn’t get to create law with a pen and a phone, then more power to Cotton, and difficulty to you.
Would the outcome of the absence of a deal depend at least in part on why there isn’t a deal? I always saw the negotiations as Iran knowing that the could push Obama extremely far and just seeing how far he could be pushed before signing something. I think Obama wants a signature at the bottom of a piece of paper, even if it says that Iran pledges not to go nuclear until January 21, 2017, after which the deal is null and void. If Iran walks away from that situation, it must have something on its mind about how it intends to proceed.
Man needs a scapegoat.
He’s the man who led the “no deal” charge.
If “no deal” goes bad, it’s on him.
No one can tell met that isn’t fair, lest we no longer hold ourselves accountable for our own actions.
I see right through Cotton. He won’t hold himself to the blame no matter how fair it is to do so.
Claire,
If there is no Iran Deal, Then What, What? When bizarro President and bizarro Secretary of State are done artfully manipulating the situation into a hopeless and useless pretzel because they think they are defeating the imaginary American right wing we can all stop listening to this endless farce for a while. If on the other hand they return with peace in our time I hope Congress has the sense to give them the biggest loudest Bronx cheer in all of Western Civilization.
As you well know by now, I always respond to these situations with a mature attitude commensurate with high intellectual tone of this administration.
I have an astonishingly good idea.
Yes, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race.
Regards,
Jim
Of, you can see straight through lead. What magical a man you are: A man’s intention & effort must be the cause if events end up matching his intention. You should live in fear of this otherworldly Senator. He may turn his gaze to you & wither the mustache from your face-
Tommy, do you truly believe that Tom Cotton’s actions and rhetoric were so powerful that they forced people who actually wanted a deal into a situation in which they were/are unable to agree upon a deal?
Or he’s just willing to blame him. If the meeting had been blown up by terrorists, then he’d say otherwise, but still mention the danger of king cotton-
“King Cotton” LOL
I believe he severely undermined our negotiating team’s position.
I have historical support. His own chamber issued a report about the danger to America (their words) of Senators injecting themselves into the President’s negotiating process.
I have anecdotal support – I negotiate for a living. All day, everyday. If my secretary ran into the negotiating room, pointed at me and said the my adversary, “Don’t trust him to deliver his end of this bargain to you!” she’d be out on her tail the same day.
That’s exactly what Cotton did.
If the Iranians interpreted Tom Cotton’s letter as saying “President Obama can’t be trusted,” why would they have continued to negotiate rather than bringing things to a halt right then?
TT,
Smile when you say future Secretary of State Cotton.
Regards,
Jim
If the Iranians interpreted Tom Cotton’s letter as saying “President Obama can’t be trusted” and also took that statement to be an accurate reflection of reality, why would they have continued to negotiate rather than bringing things to a halt right then?
It creates a reason in their mind to alter their position. It places in their mind the necessity to seek more guarantees and better terms for default.
I’ve never been so embarrassed by my party in my life. Our lowest point – turning on our President while he was negotiating with the enemy, even in violation of a Senate report warning of how dangerous that can be.
I may not like Obama, but he’s my President. There is no way I would Dixie Chick him like Cotton did.
When the President brings back a deal, that’s the time for the Senate to tear it up. While the negotiations are going on, that’s the time to support the President by not interfering.
Kerry has announced there will be no deal by the latest deadline (6am tomorrow) which was linked to the 30-day Senate review – any agreement after this date the Senate has 60 days to review.
Clearly the Iranians were trying to use this deadline to extract additional concessions. If, in the next few days, there is an agreement it means that the Iranians already had what they needed a while ago and were just using the deadline to get some gravy on top of their meal. Extra added bonus is that the Administration will claim it’s the Iranians who gave in.
If there isn’t a deal soon this thing may just drag on in suspended animation.
Tommy. I think that you are wrong about Tom Cotton. He fought in Iraq, and he knows what the Iranian regime did to see that as many of our soldiers as possible died there. He thinks it absurd that we should trust the Iranians, and he is right. Whatever Tom Cotton may be, he is not a poser. He is a guy who has put his life on the line.
Let me add one more thing about Tom Cotton. If you think, as he does and I do, that this President does not have the interests of this country first and foremost in mind, then you will do what he did. If you prefer no deal to a deal that allows the Iranians to get nuclear weapons with our sanction, then you will do what he did.
In a matter as serious as this, the President of the United States does not have the authority to make a deal. He needs the approval of the United States Senate, and it is incumbent on him not to negotiate anything for which he cannot gain that approval. Given that it was clearly the intention of the President to bypass Congress, what Cotton did was right.
My only regret is that it did not work.
There is a measure of respect owed to anyone who served.
You know what I don’t owe anyone, service or not? The safety of the nation when they transfer to politics. Benedict Arnold was an American general but that’s no reasons to turn a blind eye to what he did later.
There is a time for Cotton to negotiate with the Iranians – when he wins the Presidency. If he does, may there never be an upstart Senator who ignores the report of his own Chambers on the danger of Senators injecting themselves in the negotiation process, not to mention the Logan Act.
Barack H. Obama is my President. I disagree with a variety of his policies. Do I look like some Sean Hannity, flag waiving fool who will forget the safety of my nation to score a point for my party? Forget that. Never. No way. I’m too patriotic. That’s Cotton’s failure, not mine, and he can’t hide behind prior military service to not be called out on it.
If conservatives don’t call out our own, we are no better than liberals.
I say with all the respect I can muster that you are misstating the law and the process.
The President negotiates first. The Senate gets involved afterward.
The Senate Chamber took up the issue once and issued a report warning Senators to wait until the President is finished to then do what they will to kill the deal. In their own words, to do otherwise, puts America in danger.
Cotton has to follow the law. He broke it.
The ayatollahs are just being good negotiators and squeezing every last bit they can from Obama. They know he won’t walk away no matter how bad the deal gets for the US.
Obama will do a deal even if he has to supply finished nukes to Iran.
That is an interesting take. US Senators are employees of the President. Did not realize that. I had believed they were a co-equal branch of government. I also wonder was it not the White House that first floated the idea of by-passing the Senate? The danger of doing by passing the Senate should have been stated. Your analogy is a horrible one.
This one is better you are negotiating for the Board of Directors and you float the idea of by passing them and signing the deal yourself. Your partner comes in and says to you and the people that you are negotiating with that any deal you sign by yourself has no power to bind the Board of Directors. You might hate your partner for being honest but it is a better analogy.