Let’s Be Honest
About the Iran
Nuclear Deal
There are several politically inconvenient realities its detractors and defenders should consider.
“Don’t compare me to the Almighty,” U.S. President Joe Biden is fond of quoting his father as saying. “Compare me to the alternative.” In a parallel universe, that would be good advice for anyone who has ever been in government wrestling with excruciatingly difficult policy choices. But here in our universe, a pernicious polarization prevails, turning just about every issue into a morality play pitting the forces of good against evil and often crowding out more sensible and realistic options.
Take the soon-(or never)-to-be-concluded revised Iran nuclear agreement. To its critics, such as U.S. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, it’s Satan’s finger on earth and will empower and enrich an evil regime; to its defenders, like U.S. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, it will make the United States, the Middle East, and the world a safer place.
The debate about the prospective deal is already a nasty one, and if the deal is ever concluded, it will become even more toxic. We should judge any proposed new nuclear deal not against what a perfect deal would look like (i.e., the Almighty) but against the alternative (no deal). Sadly, like everything else in Washington these days, the debate is likely to be deeply personal. Rob Malley, the U.S. envoy leading the negotiations, has already been subjected to any number of grossly unfair personal attacks. (Full disclosure: Malley is a close friend of mine.) And these are almost certain to intensify.
No comments:
Post a Comment