With Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia supporting the Iran nuclear deal, it immediately becomes an epic diplomatic accomplishment for President Obama.
For those wondering why the Republican alternative(s) would have generated more of the same foreign policy outcomes, or worse, think about what President Obama's nuclear deal does. Then compare it to what the Republicans have proposed in Iran.
GOP PROPOSAL #1: THE PERPETUAL WAR SCENARIO
In effect, the Republicans believe that war and the U.S. military can make any situation better. They are wrong.
What the GOP has proposed, with reference to Iran and her nuclear program, shows the world they refuse to understand one simple reality: The United States isn't in the position that it was immediately after World War II, and throughout most of the cold war. The world has changed. As The Atlantic's Peter Beinart put it, "The United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq."
President George W. Bush didn't understand this reality, which is one of the many reasons his presidency was a dismal failure.
GOP PROPOSAL #2: NUCLEAR OR CONVENTIONAL MISSILE STRIKES
Proposals for nuclear or conventional missile strikes are non-starters for at least two reasons.
First, these approaches do absolutely nothing to monitor, slow, or stop Iran's nuclear development process. Second, as the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out, precision nuclear strikes and guided bunker buster bombs would be largely ineffective because of the fallout and/or inability to effect deep tunnel facilities.
Now ask yourselves this: Is it better that we try diplomacy, backed by major western allies - as well as the Russians and the Chinese - or do we try the same things we have in the past, and hope for different results?
COSTS IN BLOOD AND TREASURE ... AND THE LIMITS OF EMPIRE
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the war in Iraq has cost us more than $2 trillion, after we were told it would cost $60 billion. At the same time, we have lost more than 4,000 American lives on the battlefield, after being assured we'd be greeted as liberators.
While we're at it, let's think about how the Republicans have proposed we deal with returning veterans. Earlier this year Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have expanded health care and education programs for veterans because - get this - they say we can't afford it.
Finally, let's make one thing clear. The U.S. can't simultaneously go after ISIS, Syria, and Iran - while at the same time balancing the demands of the Chinese and the Russians. This means the U.S. has to prioritize and build alliances. The Iranian nuclear deal does just that. For those who disagree, and suggest a more militarized and confrontational approach, you have two options: 1) Reread what's above; 2) Grow up.
SUMMING UP
We should keep the following three points in mind as we listen to the Republicans "debate" President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran over the next few weeks.
On the domestic front the Republicans have been wrong about virtually every major economic issue during President Obama's first 6 years in office. Just because they're inclined to disagree and say no to the Iranian deal doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about - or have the best interests of the nation at heart.
Then we have this foreign policy nugget. The architects of the Iraq war, and their Republican sycophants in the U.S. Congress, were complete failures when it came to anticipating what would happen once we entered Iraq. Big time.
To expect the GOP to have a sudden sense of geo-strategic clarity on Iran is wishful thinking, at best.
Finally, if we throw in the fact that the Republican party has been wrong about virtually every major global event since the cold war one thing becomes clear: There's really no reason anyone should listen to what the GOP has to say about President Obama's nuclear deal in Iran.
- Mark
UPDATE: This is concise and very well done. Via Vox we get "How the Iran Nuclear Deal Works, Explained in 3 Minutes" ...
For those wondering why the Republican alternative(s) would have generated more of the same foreign policy outcomes, or worse, think about what President Obama's nuclear deal does. Then compare it to what the Republicans have proposed in Iran.
GOP PROPOSAL #1: THE PERPETUAL WAR SCENARIO
In effect, the Republicans believe that war and the U.S. military can make any situation better. They are wrong.
What the GOP has proposed, with reference to Iran and her nuclear program, shows the world they refuse to understand one simple reality: The United States isn't in the position that it was immediately after World War II, and throughout most of the cold war. The world has changed. As The Atlantic's Peter Beinart put it, "The United States cannot bludgeon Iran into total submission, either economically or militarily. The U.S. tried that in Iraq."
President George W. Bush didn't understand this reality, which is one of the many reasons his presidency was a dismal failure.
GOP PROPOSAL #2: NUCLEAR OR CONVENTIONAL MISSILE STRIKES
Proposals for nuclear or conventional missile strikes are non-starters for at least two reasons.
First, these approaches do absolutely nothing to monitor, slow, or stop Iran's nuclear development process. Second, as the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out, precision nuclear strikes and guided bunker buster bombs would be largely ineffective because of the fallout and/or inability to effect deep tunnel facilities.
Now ask yourselves this: Is it better that we try diplomacy, backed by major western allies - as well as the Russians and the Chinese - or do we try the same things we have in the past, and hope for different results?
COSTS IN BLOOD AND TREASURE ... AND THE LIMITS OF EMPIRE
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the war in Iraq has cost us more than $2 trillion, after we were told it would cost $60 billion. At the same time, we have lost more than 4,000 American lives on the battlefield, after being assured we'd be greeted as liberators.
While we're at it, let's think about how the Republicans have proposed we deal with returning veterans. Earlier this year Senate Republicans blocked legislation that would have expanded health care and education programs for veterans because - get this - they say we can't afford it.
Finally, let's make one thing clear. The U.S. can't simultaneously go after ISIS, Syria, and Iran - while at the same time balancing the demands of the Chinese and the Russians. This means the U.S. has to prioritize and build alliances. The Iranian nuclear deal does just that. For those who disagree, and suggest a more militarized and confrontational approach, you have two options: 1) Reread what's above; 2) Grow up.
SUMMING UP
We should keep the following three points in mind as we listen to the Republicans "debate" President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran over the next few weeks.
On the domestic front the Republicans have been wrong about virtually every major economic issue during President Obama's first 6 years in office. Just because they're inclined to disagree and say no to the Iranian deal doesn't mean they actually know what they're talking about - or have the best interests of the nation at heart.
Then we have this foreign policy nugget. The architects of the Iraq war, and their Republican sycophants in the U.S. Congress, were complete failures when it came to anticipating what would happen once we entered Iraq. Big time.
To expect the GOP to have a sudden sense of geo-strategic clarity on Iran is wishful thinking, at best.
Finally, if we throw in the fact that the Republican party has been wrong about virtually every major global event since the cold war one thing becomes clear: There's really no reason anyone should listen to what the GOP has to say about President Obama's nuclear deal in Iran.
- Mark
UPDATE: This is concise and very well done. Via Vox we get "How the Iran Nuclear Deal Works, Explained in 3 Minutes" ...
No comments:
Post a Comment