The obtuse anti-agreement comments found here are disturbing. No one is saying that Iran's new national anthem is Kumbayah. Hello, we negotiated with the Soviet Union. We negotiated with China. In both instances, an existential opponent was transformed via the infection of exposure to Western values and capitalism. What makes you think that it can't happen with Iran? To think otherwise is, in essence, to think that Iran is tougher and morally more righteous than the West. I don't think so.
5
It is like a dream. Perhaps this is the first step towards a day where some one could rent a car in Tel Aviv, see the monuments and citadels of Lebanon and Syria, visit the ancient sites and communities of Iraq and marvel at Isfahan. As a former travel company operator, the lack of flexibility in the worlds leaders has certainly ushered in a dark age, and everyone can take a share of the blame. But once in a while something happens that makes you hope. And this is one of those moments. Bear in mind former Israeli Army and Intelligence figures have been supportive of this agreement. We have to get along. The alternative is global destruction. Will we be able to do it?
3
If sanctions and attitudes ease and this actually works, in ten years the Iranian younger generation will be in power in Iran. That can only give hope and time for this solution to work. If we become the hard-liners, the only resolution is probably the mother of wars.
2
You have got to be kidding.
How utterly ignorant of the facts does one have to be to actually have this emanate from one's fingertips? Zero knowledge is too high a bar. Willful dissembly is the only possibility.
How utterly ignorant of the facts does one have to be to actually have this emanate from one's fingertips? Zero knowledge is too high a bar. Willful dissembly is the only possibility.
2
So this is the new loveable Iran , that doesnt punish non believers and during the green revolution did't sniper fire into civilians. It's not the Iran that chant's death to America,denies the existance of the State Of Israel , denies the Holocaust.Sponsors terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan (with $5,000 bonuses) It's not the Iran that has denied the UN inspectors access to nuclear site's. Denies the existance of military nuclear programs.Develops ballistic missiles (to fire love bombs) Oh Yes we can trust Iran Thanks Obama the worse negotiator of the 19th,20th,21st century This is the guy who wants to normalize relationships with Cuba when its supporter states Russia and we have no toilet roll's Venezuala are in bankruptsy (all he had to do is wait 6 more months) Good old Obama helping those who need it more ! After 30 years of high level management and negotiating I have never seen a worse case of utter incompetence
3
So what if Iran claims to have a western oriented youth culture? It's still a country ruled by an elderly religious male dominated clique who are still stuck in the 7th century. Talk to me when women can wear what they want without being harassed by the morals police. Talk to me when Iranians of all ages stop calling America The Great Satan. Look, even Iranians born after 1979 were carefully taught to hate the West, especially America and Israel. It's now Iran's world and we infidels had better get used to it.
1
Yes, lets put some readily available hostages in Iran. It worked so well under Carter.
3
Since the Munich treaty of 1938 was a success until it was broken, how would this agreement be any different? As for his statement , " As he reassures worried allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, he has also signaled that the United States will pursue its national interest" He fails to mention that these two allies are not only" not reassured" but will also follow their National Interests as well.
1
I surprised Mr. Cohen does not wear the pom poms to go with his cheer leading. Naive at best, dangerous pathway to WW111 on the flip side.
1
We will know Iran has genuinely changed when it issues an official apology for the hostages of 1979. Until then, we should hold no negotiations, much less make deals, with the Iranians.
They do not respect us enough to be depended upon to keep their word. A deal is meaningless unless both parties are willing to keep their word, even when the immediate issue at hand is against their interest. Does anyone believe the Iranians would do this? Really?
They do not respect us enough to be depended upon to keep their word. A deal is meaningless unless both parties are willing to keep their word, even when the immediate issue at hand is against their interest. Does anyone believe the Iranians would do this? Really?
3
"The 40th anniversary of the revolution, and the seizing of American hostages in Iran, is four years off. I’d bet on the United States Embassy in Tehran reopening then."
I'll take this bet.
It could win in two cases only, right? Either the Supreme Leader, whoever is going to hold the title, decides to remove "Death to America" slogan from the Embassy's walls (and it is the essential reason d'être of the whole Islamic Republic, and hence his own ) . Or the Islamic Republic regime is overthrown.
I would like to see my bet lost, but what possible excuse do we have to believe it is likely? Obama's charm? Rouhani words ?
I'll take this bet.
It could win in two cases only, right? Either the Supreme Leader, whoever is going to hold the title, decides to remove "Death to America" slogan from the Embassy's walls (and it is the essential reason d'être of the whole Islamic Republic, and hence his own ) . Or the Islamic Republic regime is overthrown.
I would like to see my bet lost, but what possible excuse do we have to believe it is likely? Obama's charm? Rouhani words ?
1
Change you can believe in.
1
Mr Cohen, you may remember that by the end of 1945 Europe and the United States said they did not know that one of Hitler's aim was to kill Jews. In 2020 they may say that they did not know that Iran's aim was to destroy Israel.
4
So Saudi Arabia is now looking to Sunni Pakistan for military assistance. Great, more countries jumping into the burning cauldron which is the Middle East. Next Saudi Arabia will say that it feels extremely threatened by Iran. So it maintains the right to get nuclear capability and decides to get the necessary help from our other rogue ally Pakistan which will not hesitate to set up nuclear facilities albeit at a steep price. Pakistan is a failed State and ratcheting up its nuclear capabilities and increasing tensions in South Asia. It needs money and Saudia has plenty of it. Are we again going to overlook all their terrible actions? One, because they are our allies? Two, they are deeply concerned about their security. Will we justify their dangerous actions. Saudi Arabia will say they are just taking a page from the Israeli notebook. Try winning that argument. Meanwhile, we'll keep Iran forcefully down with sanctions and their nuclear capabilities dismantled. Yes, they should'nt have concerns about their own security because Iran is NOT our ally. And we have let them know we have 600B against their 30B. It is not a threat. Only Iran should be a good boy while all the others can be as bad as bad they can be. Oh! The glaring contradictions in OUR behavior and Foreign Policy.
1
I like the deal, give Iran a chance to show the world that they are not interested in a bomb. I do not believe Iran is suicidal. We all know what happens when Israel thinks something is up, Syria facility bombed- Iraqi facility bombed. The down side I see is when Iranian oil flows into the market, and that is only for oil investors not oil consumers.
2
This article brought tears to my eyes. My hats off to President Hassan Rouhani for seeking to end hostility with all countries. What a world it would be where people don't resort to hate and violence to advance an ideology, but fight to end the hostility.
3
It's a good idea to mark the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution in 2019 with the restoration of diplomatic relations between Iran and the US!
Switzerland will be more than happy to see an American embassy in Tehran. So far it has been the "Protecting Power" of the USA in Iran since 1980. Its embassy in Tehran provides consular services to U.S. citizens living in or travelling to Iran.
Switzerland will be more than happy to see an American embassy in Tehran. So far it has been the "Protecting Power" of the USA in Iran since 1980. Its embassy in Tehran provides consular services to U.S. citizens living in or travelling to Iran.
2
It is not a bad thing to remind the United States that enjoying irrevocable support from its allies cannot mean exercising a veto on its allies actions.
I really wonder how much of the problem here is magical thinking. The Iranians seem to believe the USA created Isreal as it's personal tool to destroy Iran. The USA gets whatever it wants, it is behind all the bad things that happen in the middle East. Kind statements toward the Persian people are belied by the actions of it's controlled instrument in Tel Aviv.
On the other side, Isreali leaders seem to think the USA can do anything they need, and any failure of the USA to resolve all of the Jewish states problems are a matter of lack of commitment.
The reality is, most americans can not find the middle east on a map, have no interests there, and know it. The international (Not American) oil industry controls American policy by its ownership of congress. And it is the sole beneficiary of most American policy.
On the other side, Isreali leaders seem to think the USA can do anything they need, and any failure of the USA to resolve all of the Jewish states problems are a matter of lack of commitment.
The reality is, most americans can not find the middle east on a map, have no interests there, and know it. The international (Not American) oil industry controls American policy by its ownership of congress. And it is the sole beneficiary of most American policy.
The deal makes sense because, as we are led to believe in the current "framework", we will be able to detect when Iran moves to produce a nuclear weapon. US and its allies (or Israel for that matter) still have sanctions or a military option, so why not do the do the deal?
But all this talk about Iran being a potential force for good in the region seems to be hyperbole to me. Iran is very good at attacking US interests via proxy - let's not forget the thousands of US soldiers that were maimed or killed with Iran made IEDs in Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1), the hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed and millions made refugees by Iran backed Syria and so on. The more likely outcome is that Iran will use the increased revenue, much of which flows to the Revolutionary Guards, to increase their deadly influence in the region. Are they preferable to ISIS? Maybe in the near term but they could be the greater risk to peace in the region longer term.
So do the deal - but let's be realistic about who we are dealing with.
But all this talk about Iran being a potential force for good in the region seems to be hyperbole to me. Iran is very good at attacking US interests via proxy - let's not forget the thousands of US soldiers that were maimed or killed with Iran made IEDs in Iraq (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1), the hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed and millions made refugees by Iran backed Syria and so on. The more likely outcome is that Iran will use the increased revenue, much of which flows to the Revolutionary Guards, to increase their deadly influence in the region. Are they preferable to ISIS? Maybe in the near term but they could be the greater risk to peace in the region longer term.
So do the deal - but let's be realistic about who we are dealing with.
What does Iran get from all this? A world marketplace, with fewer restrictions for money to flow into Iran.
What does the US get from all this? Promises, from the puppets in the Iranian bureaucracy whose masters are the Religious Assembly of Experts and whose leader is Ali Khameini. Which should demonstrate exactly how valid those promises are.
What does the US get from all this? Promises, from the puppets in the Iranian bureaucracy whose masters are the Religious Assembly of Experts and whose leader is Ali Khameini. Which should demonstrate exactly how valid those promises are.
2
Open an embassy in Tehran?!? The last one was overrun by "students" that were ostensibly not controlled by the government, but in fact it could have ended the hostage crisis any time (as it did earlier when the embassy was invaded by protesters). They also managed to destroy not one but two of our embassies in Beirut with massive car bombs, killing scores of Americans and Lebanese.
If we're going to normalize relations with Iran, then I want Roger Cohen to be our first ambassador. His opinions have careened from Iran being an imperfect democracy, but a democracy all the same, to it being an undemocratic abomination, to it being the key to regional stability and peace. Spending some time in Tehran, and possibly as a "guest" of one of Tehran's more excitable types, could be good for him. There's a lot of education in getting beaten while chained to a radiator. That will hopefully help him to work out just what the exact nature of the regime there really is, if he truly cares to know.
If we're going to normalize relations with Iran, then I want Roger Cohen to be our first ambassador. His opinions have careened from Iran being an imperfect democracy, but a democracy all the same, to it being an undemocratic abomination, to it being the key to regional stability and peace. Spending some time in Tehran, and possibly as a "guest" of one of Tehran's more excitable types, could be good for him. There's a lot of education in getting beaten while chained to a radiator. That will hopefully help him to work out just what the exact nature of the regime there really is, if he truly cares to know.
3
The big gamble is whether or not this is the time to strengthen Iranian leadership. Basically is the reformer strengthened enough by this action to push the Ayatollah aside? If not, we are better served to just wait for another uprising and hope we pick the right side.
In response to those who compared the Iran nuclear deal to the Hitler-Chamberlain treaty signed in Munich in 1938, here is the truth and the facts.
Winston Churchill is the worst leader in history of Europe.
He was just incredibly lucky. He won the war exclusively because he lost the war first.
At the moment Great Britain and France already lost the WWII at the very beginning of summer 1941, the German Fuhrer and the Japan Emperor went completely crazy and failed to control their mind, greed and cravings.
By believing that they already won the WWII, they moved to the next stage and attacked the USSR and the USA. Of course, such utter craziness doomed Germany and Japan to eventually lose the WWII.
The truth is that Berlin and Tokyo lost the chess game they already had in their pockets.
Losing to Hitler makes Mr. Churchill the worst politician in history...
Winston Churchill is the worst leader in history of Europe.
He was just incredibly lucky. He won the war exclusively because he lost the war first.
At the moment Great Britain and France already lost the WWII at the very beginning of summer 1941, the German Fuhrer and the Japan Emperor went completely crazy and failed to control their mind, greed and cravings.
By believing that they already won the WWII, they moved to the next stage and attacked the USSR and the USA. Of course, such utter craziness doomed Germany and Japan to eventually lose the WWII.
The truth is that Berlin and Tokyo lost the chess game they already had in their pockets.
Losing to Hitler makes Mr. Churchill the worst politician in history...
Yes! The finding and following of a "third way," not perfect, but a WAY toward goals we long for. Yes!
4
This article states that Iran has often veered from reason. So have we. How refreshing when reasonable people find each other and more amazingly can trump the crazies. So it is too early to break out the champaigne, but when people are willing to stick with all night sessions with coffee to find some common ground well that is perhaps even better.
5
This agreement is very important. There's no question it is the right thing to do.
The US lost credibility in the region when it decided to back Israel no matter how bad the violence they created and the anti-Iran rhetoric they produced. It also lost credibility when it invaded Iraq in an unveiled attempt to project total hegemony over the world. Paul Wolfowitz was a prime culprit in this, and we had better watch out for people like him that want to use the US military to fight holy wars on behalf of the Jewish State.
Finally the US has taken the lead and rejected this insane banter between Israel and Iran. The objective view sees no side more right than the other. If a person fails to see this, they are probably incapable of doing reasonable diplomacy on this issue.
The US cannot control the world, and it shouldn't control the world. It can't even seem to control itself these days. It lost its democracy to money, it lost its morality to rich people, and it lost its domestic credibility to a broken political system. Who are we to say how to run the world when we can't even run our own nation?
The US is far more dangerous than Iran or even ISIL. The US military in the hands of the Republican party is a recipe for absolute disaster. Absolute disaster. Until the US can get its Republican party back to reality and under control, it will have no credibility with other superpowers.
This is a step towards showing that the US deserves its place as a superpower.
The US lost credibility in the region when it decided to back Israel no matter how bad the violence they created and the anti-Iran rhetoric they produced. It also lost credibility when it invaded Iraq in an unveiled attempt to project total hegemony over the world. Paul Wolfowitz was a prime culprit in this, and we had better watch out for people like him that want to use the US military to fight holy wars on behalf of the Jewish State.
Finally the US has taken the lead and rejected this insane banter between Israel and Iran. The objective view sees no side more right than the other. If a person fails to see this, they are probably incapable of doing reasonable diplomacy on this issue.
The US cannot control the world, and it shouldn't control the world. It can't even seem to control itself these days. It lost its democracy to money, it lost its morality to rich people, and it lost its domestic credibility to a broken political system. Who are we to say how to run the world when we can't even run our own nation?
The US is far more dangerous than Iran or even ISIL. The US military in the hands of the Republican party is a recipe for absolute disaster. Absolute disaster. Until the US can get its Republican party back to reality and under control, it will have no credibility with other superpowers.
This is a step towards showing that the US deserves its place as a superpower.
5
How does anyone know when Israel might unleash its nuclear weapons? Reportedly Israel was the sixth country in the world to have developed them, building its first nuclear weapon in December 1966. Given his interference with the President and Congress, why shouldn't the US and Europe think Netanyahu is as much of a nut as the Ayatollah of Iran?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
2
T hank God our president is a courageous peace-maker and not a cowardly war-monger.
Isreal's prime minister is upset because there is no language saying Iran acknowledges it's right to exist......maybe that's because nobody knows where Israel wants to exist: inside 1967 borders, everywhere from the Jordan to the
ends of the earth.....
May moral God-fearing people everywhere give peace a chance.
Isreal's prime minister is upset because there is no language saying Iran acknowledges it's right to exist......maybe that's because nobody knows where Israel wants to exist: inside 1967 borders, everywhere from the Jordan to the
ends of the earth.....
May moral God-fearing people everywhere give peace a chance.
3
Roger,
Here is an interesting rebuttal to the US Congress' letter to Iran's Leaders by Dr. Moreh Sedgh, the head of Iran's Jewish Community:
"Siamak Moreh Sedgh, the Jewish representative in the Iranian Parliament, said that Synagogues in Iran are the safest in the world and pointed out that during World War II, Iran was a refuge for Polish and other Jews fleeing Europe. He does not like to be associated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that Netanyahu is not the representative of world Jewry."
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iran-jewish-mp-netanya...
AND perhaps J Street should invite Dr. Moreh Sedgh to speak to the US Congress and directly inform to the American public.
Here is an interesting rebuttal to the US Congress' letter to Iran's Leaders by Dr. Moreh Sedgh, the head of Iran's Jewish Community:
"Siamak Moreh Sedgh, the Jewish representative in the Iranian Parliament, said that Synagogues in Iran are the safest in the world and pointed out that during World War II, Iran was a refuge for Polish and other Jews fleeing Europe. He does not like to be associated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that Netanyahu is not the representative of world Jewry."
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/03/iran-jewish-mp-netanya...
AND perhaps J Street should invite Dr. Moreh Sedgh to speak to the US Congress and directly inform to the American public.
3
Dr. Sedgh is saying those things about Iran with Iranian guns pointed at his head. What are you going to tell us next? That homosexuals are well-treated in iran? Or that there are no homosexuals in Iran (even though the ayatollahs regularly have known homosexuals publicly hanged from cranes)?
Obama is not like Chamberlin, but the Republican congress is like the 1919 Republican congress if it vetos an eventual treaty with Iran and the rest of the world. Republicans vetoed the Versailles treat and refused to join the League of Nations; it could be argued that was a contributing factor the WW2
We have a chance to change the course of history, let us not fail to seize it.
We have a chance to change the course of history, let us not fail to seize it.
1
Walk the streets of Tehran, or indeed any other Iranian city, and you will be overwhelmed by the people.
They are intelligent, inquisitive and most of all, anxious to participate on the world's stage once again.
Their euphoria with Obama's speech, and the initial accord reached in Lausanne, has been both genuine and very public.
This is a great opportunity for us to put aside the inflammatory rhetoric, and build onto the bridges to Iran that Obama and Kerry have started.
They are intelligent, inquisitive and most of all, anxious to participate on the world's stage once again.
Their euphoria with Obama's speech, and the initial accord reached in Lausanne, has been both genuine and very public.
This is a great opportunity for us to put aside the inflammatory rhetoric, and build onto the bridges to Iran that Obama and Kerry have started.
4
Hermetic Deals....in the harsh light of exposure ...on media world-wide...
is indeed unlikely.
Constant negotiations ......exposure to enlightenment....will eventually
result in positive steps toward peace...
Fortiter in re: Leniter in Modo...Godspeed John Kerry et al.
is indeed unlikely.
Constant negotiations ......exposure to enlightenment....will eventually
result in positive steps toward peace...
Fortiter in re: Leniter in Modo...Godspeed John Kerry et al.
Once the accord with Iran - supported by the other P4 plus Germany - is signed in black and white, the Nobel prize committee in Norway will be lauded for their foresight that President Obama would work tireless for peace, and achieve greatness by solving the most complex foreign policy issue of our time.
I assume that several committee members are already considering Secretary of State, John Kerry, for the next Peace Nobel prize.
I assume that several committee members are already considering Secretary of State, John Kerry, for the next Peace Nobel prize.
Wonderfully written, as usual, Mr. Cohen. Perhaps changes are coming in Iran because of Khamenei's health and age. The agreement, if viewed as trustworthy and if it relieves the economic difficulties on the population, moderates will prevail when a successor to Khamenei is chosen.
Saudi Arabia fears ISIS with its pledge to oust the monarchy and become guardian of Mecca more than it fears Iran. As long as oil prices don't plummet, I'm not so worried about The Saudis. But I do have great fear of what Israel might do in its state of panic, much more than I do of any betrayal by Iran. And Netanyahu just said that bombing Iran is not off the table.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei...
Saudi Arabia fears ISIS with its pledge to oust the monarchy and become guardian of Mecca more than it fears Iran. As long as oil prices don't plummet, I'm not so worried about The Saudis. But I do have great fear of what Israel might do in its state of panic, much more than I do of any betrayal by Iran. And Netanyahu just said that bombing Iran is not off the table.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei...
1
The deep understanding of civilizational history of the world drove Obama to this agreement - you can not be a world leading power without working with the countries of great civilizations. The Western tendencies of undermining the other civilizations often make them miopic and narrow minded. But great Western leaders took the West on small steps towards the right direction - the Marshall Plan, Democratic Japan, China relation, closeness to India and finally this attempt to reach Iran. This time West is approaching Iran not as Master but as a friend. If West keep its term of friendship, Iran may not go nuclear - if it changes to the role of Master, Iran will be nuclear. Obama is seeing the writing on the wall.
1
Iran may be becoming less of a pariah state at the same time Israel is becoming more. If this agreement is made and stands, there will be talk in Europe and possibly even America of a Mideast free of nuclear weapons. At the least the bar for the world tolerating Israel's use of such weapons will be raised. It must do everything possible to kill the agreement. It won't be pretty.
1
I still haven't found a single conservative critique of the Iran nuclear negotiations that has as much substance as those coming from its supporters. As I see it, conservatives argue: 1) Obama lacks the guts to "push harder for a better deal" (yes, that is as far as it gets in terms of specifics); 2) heavier sanctions would "work" (but they won't, given that the international coalition will fall apart if the US walks away); 3) the only acceptable solution is for Iran to completely give in and disarm itself unilaterally (the alternative - what a war with Iran would really entail - is glossed over or dismissed).
I say this more with regret than scorn because we need good, fair-minded critiques. The points most often mentioned - the need for verification, the discrepancy between statements afterward, the timing of sanctions - are matters of negotiation now, not conceptual criticisms.
I say this more with regret than scorn because we need good, fair-minded critiques. The points most often mentioned - the need for verification, the discrepancy between statements afterward, the timing of sanctions - are matters of negotiation now, not conceptual criticisms.
Dear Mr. Cohen,
I truly like you for being always supportive of the helpless and defenseless civilians in Sarajevo and across Bosnia during the bloodsheds over there.
However, exactly because I owe you a lot, here is a free advice.
Any irrevocable support is always fully revocable.
Have you ever witnessed any irrevocable support throughout the entire human history?
Only the foolish foreign leaders could believe into such a thing like the irrevocable support.
By the way, there is no free lunch in this world either...
I truly like you for being always supportive of the helpless and defenseless civilians in Sarajevo and across Bosnia during the bloodsheds over there.
However, exactly because I owe you a lot, here is a free advice.
Any irrevocable support is always fully revocable.
Have you ever witnessed any irrevocable support throughout the entire human history?
Only the foolish foreign leaders could believe into such a thing like the irrevocable support.
By the way, there is no free lunch in this world either...
There are way too many exclusions for the current document as it is being represented to be called a deal in any honest sense of the word. As such, Roger Cohen, and with all due respect for both your insights and motivations, I cannot call the 'framework' any kind of Diplomatic achievement. The two sides are delivering widely divergent summaries of what the 'framework' says and means. Iran claims sanctions are to be lifted instantaneously on the President's word, as if by magic wand. Iran insists there will be no cameras installed at any facility to monitor anything: meaning there is more transparency about the activities inside a Las Vegas hotel room than at a 'framework'-referenced nuclear lab in Iran. Most bizarrely, Iran's unabashed & unabated death wishes vocalised each Friday denouncing America & Israel: literally, wishing for us all to drop dead, are not once mentioned, repudiated, apologised for. It is reasonable to set the recognition of Israel as a point of departure for any lifting of sanctions on Iran. It is reasonable for all Americans to hear at least a public apology from the Ayatollahs for the revolting ordeal of holding our embassy staff hostage for 444 days. It is reasonable to demand the release of key political detainees as well as US detainees before signing any document re-igniting normal relations between the US & Iran. None of this has ever even been considered as a logical 1st step by the current White House leadership. This is all a tragic blunder.
9
"It is reasonable for all Americans to hear at least a public apology from the Ayatollahs for the revolting ordeal of holding our embassy staff hostage for 444 days...."
Perhaps it's also reasonable for the Iranians to hear a US apology for assassinating it's democratically elected leader in 1953.
Perhaps it's also reasonable for the Iranians to hear a US apology for assassinating it's democratically elected leader in 1953.
1
Att: Mary Ashot, your post was one-sided. Iranian Friday Prayers insult Israel and the U.S., but Netanyahu and some U.S. politicians call for the immediate bombing of Iran. An Iranian public apology for the hostage seizure (you can thank God they weren't seized by Saudi-backed ISIS) should be accompanied by multiple apologies from the U.S. for the 1953 coup and for U.S. assistance to Saddam Hussein during his invasion of Iran, as well as the U.S. downing of an Airbus and the killing of all 290 civilian passengers.
It was you who raised the issue of a priori apologies ...........
It was you who raised the issue of a priori apologies ...........
Iran represents the threat to America only in our heads.
If we construed Iran as a friend we would not feel threatened by the non-existent Iranian nukes as we felt threatened by the non-existent Iraqi WMD program in 2002.
The danger exists only in our very heads. We are our own worst enemy. If Iran is spreading its influence across the Middle East, that’s happening only because we dismantled a natural obstacle – the strong, secular and non-religious government in Baghdad, and we did the same to the mildly socialist governments in Libya and Syria.
Without the incompetent American presidents, there would be no ISIS and no Al Qaeda either. Don’t we remember that we started training the mujahedeens in Afghanistan in the early 80’s?
As long as the former USSR was influential in those countries, there was no terrorism, no Al Qaeda, no zealot Wahhabis and no ISIS.
The shortest way to solving the problem is to recognize what the problem is.
Our government has been the problem in the region since 1953 when it orchestrated a coup that removed democratic, secular and liberal Iranian government.
It’s long overdue to face the enemy.
We are our worst enemy, and that’s why we have been waging the endless wars for longer than 7 decades, from Europe, over the Far East and the South America to the Middle East...
If we construed Iran as a friend we would not feel threatened by the non-existent Iranian nukes as we felt threatened by the non-existent Iraqi WMD program in 2002.
The danger exists only in our very heads. We are our own worst enemy. If Iran is spreading its influence across the Middle East, that’s happening only because we dismantled a natural obstacle – the strong, secular and non-religious government in Baghdad, and we did the same to the mildly socialist governments in Libya and Syria.
Without the incompetent American presidents, there would be no ISIS and no Al Qaeda either. Don’t we remember that we started training the mujahedeens in Afghanistan in the early 80’s?
As long as the former USSR was influential in those countries, there was no terrorism, no Al Qaeda, no zealot Wahhabis and no ISIS.
The shortest way to solving the problem is to recognize what the problem is.
Our government has been the problem in the region since 1953 when it orchestrated a coup that removed democratic, secular and liberal Iranian government.
It’s long overdue to face the enemy.
We are our worst enemy, and that’s why we have been waging the endless wars for longer than 7 decades, from Europe, over the Far East and the South America to the Middle East...
8
Big difference from labelling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" and then doing nothing after destroying its arch enemy because of a mistaken belief that Iraq was building Nukes while the centrifuges increased in Iran. Yet for the GOP destroying Iran and its nuclear program is a litmus test of who is really macho.
1
Richard Luettgen suggests that Iran is the 'greatest state sponsor of terror in the region.' Sorry Richard- that title goes to Saudi Arabia. The world has a Sunni Arab terror problem- not a Persian Shiite one. But the Saudis are 'allies' so they don't count, right?
9
Since no one of authority or credibility will say it, I will: the purpose of this treaty is to buy time for the current crop of Iranian right wing loonies to die off.
It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, Russia is supporting the treaty and they live next door to Iran. The EU is on board and they are a medium missile away. Nuclear armed Israel is fanatically opposed not because they fear a nuclear Iran, but because they are afraid of an Iran unencumbered by sanctions becoming a major player in mid-eastern politics, a counter weight to the extravagant influence of an American backed Israel.
Netanyahu comes here, prattling about the Iranian long range missile threat to American soil which has somehow remained radioactivity free in spite of three hostile, nuclear-armed, missile-possessing adversities for more than half a century.
The only threat to the nation is the to the delicate sensibilities of those individuals who find chants of "Death to Israel" and "Death to the Great Satan" transcendentally menacing, that is, the "Bomb them back into the stone age" branch of the Republican party.
It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, Russia is supporting the treaty and they live next door to Iran. The EU is on board and they are a medium missile away. Nuclear armed Israel is fanatically opposed not because they fear a nuclear Iran, but because they are afraid of an Iran unencumbered by sanctions becoming a major player in mid-eastern politics, a counter weight to the extravagant influence of an American backed Israel.
Netanyahu comes here, prattling about the Iranian long range missile threat to American soil which has somehow remained radioactivity free in spite of three hostile, nuclear-armed, missile-possessing adversities for more than half a century.
The only threat to the nation is the to the delicate sensibilities of those individuals who find chants of "Death to Israel" and "Death to the Great Satan" transcendentally menacing, that is, the "Bomb them back into the stone age" branch of the Republican party.
8
Actions have consequences. If Obama succeeds in his naive capitulation to Iran's terror he will have ignited a nuke arms race in the tinder box Middle East - long susceptible to terrorist regimes (for a millennia - including those against whom President T. Jefferson sent the Marines to The shores of Tripoli to pacify sea lanes. And incentives two US allies in Asia to opt for nukes - Japan and South Korea need no more rely on the USA's security umbrella against N. Korea. And how do you suppose head in the sand Cohen will forecast China's (PRC) response to nukes in Japan and South Korea?!
Folly, thy name is Obama.
Folly, thy name is Obama.
Do you realize that Pakistan has nukes and virtually no government? That is who we should be worried about. I predict that Iran in 10 years will be a US ally.
2
The importance of the agreement with Iran is obvious to anyone who views the world with objectivity. Unfortunately, that rational group does not include the highly politicized United States Senate in which the selfish careerism of the senators – mostly, but certainly not solely, the Republican contingent -- trumps any sense of duty to do what is good for America and for the Middle East.
Right now, the lobbying of the Netanyahu hard-liners in Washington constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. That pressure being exerted tirelessly on Capitol Hill is a bigger danger for America than the aggressive, heavy-handed brinksmanship of Vladimir Putin or even the barbarous fanaticism of ISIS.
Right now, the lobbying of the Netanyahu hard-liners in Washington constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. That pressure being exerted tirelessly on Capitol Hill is a bigger danger for America than the aggressive, heavy-handed brinksmanship of Vladimir Putin or even the barbarous fanaticism of ISIS.
5
Bravo Mr. Cohen and the NYT! The U.S. must break free from the influence of right wing neocons and Israeli warmongers. The "eye for an eye" and "preemptive war" philosophies have been costly in lives and treasure. Talking, diplomacy, cooperation must become the norm in foreign relations. Also, Israel MUST begin to work hard and seriously to reach a fair and just agreement with the Palestinians who they have maltreated for years.
9
If America were a serious country any longer, we would focus solely on the really shameful things that happened in the US Embassy Tehran in 1953 when we orchestrated a military coup against the democratic, liberal and secular Iranian government and we would stop obsessing about what happened in the same Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
The former had directly created the latter.
It means the US government is directly responsible for the Supreme Leader and the Ayatollahs in charge of Iran at this moment.
If Iran is the most serious foreign treat to America at this moment, it means the US government is the worst threat to the fellow Americans...
The former had directly created the latter.
It means the US government is directly responsible for the Supreme Leader and the Ayatollahs in charge of Iran at this moment.
If Iran is the most serious foreign treat to America at this moment, it means the US government is the worst threat to the fellow Americans...
7
Contain Iran's regional ambitions to obtaining Iraq (after the USA removes
our military equipment), Syria, and Lebanon by surrounding them with USA
armed sunni allies.
Do not lift any economic sanctions. They can take over those lost lands on their own nickle.
Box them into that corridor with the threat of first strike nuclear options if they stray.
our military equipment), Syria, and Lebanon by surrounding them with USA
armed sunni allies.
Do not lift any economic sanctions. They can take over those lost lands on their own nickle.
Box them into that corridor with the threat of first strike nuclear options if they stray.
3
Smart, thoughtful commentary at a time when hysteria and pessimism rules. But one minor question: does Roger Cohen (or the NYT) really think that "alright" is all right?
The hypocrisy around here is positively mind-boggling. Let's see--Iran signs the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but promptly violates the terms of said treaty by going out of its way to obtain a nuclear arsenal of its very own. Yet, oddly, there's not a peep of outrage from anyone over Iran's effrontery. Israel doesn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because, well, let's just say it doesn't sound exactly kosher. As usual, its open season on Israel!!! Israel is bashed without mercy and labeled a warmonger that will nuke the Mid-East in the blink of an eye using its arsenal of-----------------nukes. (You fill in the blank) The double standard stinks.
When we accept that our Secretary of State is John Kerry and not Bibi Netyanhu, the long term wisdom of this deal will be more easily appreciated.
8
Foreign policy veteran veteran Graham Allison offers the following numbers on the prospective agreement with Iran:
> 15,000 is the number of pounds of low-enriched uranium that would be neutralized
> 12,000 is the number of centrifuges that would be decommissioned
> 10 is the number of months by which Iran’s “breakout” timeline to a bomb would be extended
> 5 is the number of bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium that would be neutralized
> 0 is the number of bombs’ worth of plutonium that Iran would be able to produce http://theatln.tc/1FazRVV
President Obama adds his own numbers in the Friedman interview:
> Defense budget of Iran ~$30 billion
> Defense budget of US ~$600 billion
It's time for everyone to start acting like grown ups. One way or another we can stop Iran. Better to use reason than violence. The American public understands this and supports the negotiations.
But the President still faces his biggest challenge: the US Congress.
> 15,000 is the number of pounds of low-enriched uranium that would be neutralized
> 12,000 is the number of centrifuges that would be decommissioned
> 10 is the number of months by which Iran’s “breakout” timeline to a bomb would be extended
> 5 is the number of bombs’ worth of low-enriched uranium that would be neutralized
> 0 is the number of bombs’ worth of plutonium that Iran would be able to produce http://theatln.tc/1FazRVV
President Obama adds his own numbers in the Friedman interview:
> Defense budget of Iran ~$30 billion
> Defense budget of US ~$600 billion
It's time for everyone to start acting like grown ups. One way or another we can stop Iran. Better to use reason than violence. The American public understands this and supports the negotiations.
But the President still faces his biggest challenge: the US Congress.
12
This controversy with Iran is not about nuclear power and bombs. It is about securing rights to Iran's oil. It is also, strategic in the transport of oil and gas. With a new treaty, Obama has thwarted the hawks' preferred method of war profiteering to get it.
6
A major step toward nuclear arms reduction now by the U.S. (e.g., immediately removing thousands of missiles from high alert) would be a strong signal that the U.S. takes seriously its side of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and so justify the pressure put on Iran and others to hold back.
1
Before the ice caps melt...yes, 'the ice has been broken." Then let the ship of peace and the glimmer of hope sail through. And may the war mongers sink quickly under their own vitriol. If not now, when????
6
Netanyah's short-sighted view is that Iran will always remain a strategic enemy of Israel and, therefore, must be destroyed. This calculus may prove to do enormous strategic damage to Israel, if ther is political change in Iran. Remember, Israel had something similar to an embassy in Tehran only forty years ago.
4
Beautiful. Anyone who knows Iranian history and has some knowledge about the contemporary Iran, with a youthful and open minded population, expects that the Iranian people will one day break the yoke of the Islamist regime and be part of the modern world. Hopefully this development would usher positive changes in the other Islamic countries.
5
I like this piece, and earlier pieces from Thomas Friedman. It's seems to me that 'hope is on its way', and at he same time I understand more critical views. It's clear that both parties will use their narrative for their constituencies differently. But the language that President Hassan Rouhani is using sounds like music in my ears;
- “Some think that we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers. We say it is neither of those, there is a third way. We can have cooperation with the world.”
President Obama and President Rouhani are brave people. The are both looking for a future, and both know that their BATNA is not that interesting. Entering the Zone of Possible Agreements is worth trying.
It would be very interesting to see till what extend the personal chemistry between John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif contributed to this constructive dialogue. The road ahead will be a step by step proces and a delicate path. If we lower the water in the system, a lot of roadblocks will be their. I believe they players in the field need all support needed. I hope that all critics from both parties will offer helping hands, instead of a fighting spirit. I hope that we can look back later with words like 'small steps for man, and a giant step for mankind'. I hope this will end up as a historical agreement. The region and the world needs it. Keep up the good work!
- “Some think that we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers. We say it is neither of those, there is a third way. We can have cooperation with the world.”
President Obama and President Rouhani are brave people. The are both looking for a future, and both know that their BATNA is not that interesting. Entering the Zone of Possible Agreements is worth trying.
It would be very interesting to see till what extend the personal chemistry between John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif contributed to this constructive dialogue. The road ahead will be a step by step proces and a delicate path. If we lower the water in the system, a lot of roadblocks will be their. I believe they players in the field need all support needed. I hope that all critics from both parties will offer helping hands, instead of a fighting spirit. I hope that we can look back later with words like 'small steps for man, and a giant step for mankind'. I hope this will end up as a historical agreement. The region and the world needs it. Keep up the good work!
2
Taking the military option off the table sabotages our negotiating position.
The world does not cooperate in creating crisis which suit our appetite for war. In fact. Iran deliberately ratchet up the crisis to test our resolve - and we failed the latest test.
If Obama wants to bring Iran into the family of nations, he should tell them to stop: undermining Mideast governments, funding Hamas' tunnels, their terrorist activities. threatening to exterminate our ally Israel - as well as their nuclear programs - or else the sanctions go through the roof. And there is no reason for Obama not to play good cop/with Israel as the bad cop (if Israel is wiling) in threatening Iran with air strikes to slow down its nuclear weapons program. The fallout from such a strike will be kid stuff compared to what will likely take place when Iran breaks out and acts to wipe out Israel, close down gulf oil and take over the region. Negotiate or war are not the only alternatives; in fact negotiating will likely bring war.
The world does not cooperate in creating crisis which suit our appetite for war. In fact. Iran deliberately ratchet up the crisis to test our resolve - and we failed the latest test.
If Obama wants to bring Iran into the family of nations, he should tell them to stop: undermining Mideast governments, funding Hamas' tunnels, their terrorist activities. threatening to exterminate our ally Israel - as well as their nuclear programs - or else the sanctions go through the roof. And there is no reason for Obama not to play good cop/with Israel as the bad cop (if Israel is wiling) in threatening Iran with air strikes to slow down its nuclear weapons program. The fallout from such a strike will be kid stuff compared to what will likely take place when Iran breaks out and acts to wipe out Israel, close down gulf oil and take over the region. Negotiate or war are not the only alternatives; in fact negotiating will likely bring war.
1
The situation in Iran, we should remember, was caused by American intervention- toppling an elected government and installing the Shah led directly to the revolution and an Islamic government. This intervention was seen as necessary to protect American economic interests much like our interventions in Central and South America. We are the best thing that ever happened to Islamic radicals. We bulldoze our way across the Middle East and leave fallow ground for the weeds of jihad. Will we learn from our mistakes? Not likely.
10
This agreement is a huge accomplishment for the president. First, he hired the right guy to make it happen - John Kerry. Second, he let Kerry do his job. Third, he understood what is at stake and recognized the opening. Fourth, as you say, he stuck with it, believing in his instincts, despite screaming, disloyal opposition at home and a "friend" of questionable integrity in Israel.
Opening up to Burma, restoring relations with Cuba (waaay overdue), and an agreement with, of all countries, Iran. He may earn that Peace Prize yet.
Opening up to Burma, restoring relations with Cuba (waaay overdue), and an agreement with, of all countries, Iran. He may earn that Peace Prize yet.
9
Mr. Cohen:
Thank you for the clarity of your writing on this important topic. In the shrillness of the moment it cuts through the bombast that is so deeply rooted in irrational fear.Our President is to be applauded for his steadfast behavior in the face of unprecedented opposition. He has shown considerable courage in his attempt find a way forward. We should all be hopeful that his efforts succeed, for all our sakes.
The cacaphony of fear that would stand in the way of these efforts has been disheartening. Those who would claim that Obama is weak to seek agreement are only exhibiting the weakness of their own spines.Their lack of
support reveals the hypocracy of an "American Exceptionalism" they haven't the courage to trust. Wearing a cowboy hat doesn't make you a hero or an expert on foreign affairs. If these armchair generals think we are the greatest country in the world they should start acting like they believe it
Thank you for the clarity of your writing on this important topic. In the shrillness of the moment it cuts through the bombast that is so deeply rooted in irrational fear.Our President is to be applauded for his steadfast behavior in the face of unprecedented opposition. He has shown considerable courage in his attempt find a way forward. We should all be hopeful that his efforts succeed, for all our sakes.
The cacaphony of fear that would stand in the way of these efforts has been disheartening. Those who would claim that Obama is weak to seek agreement are only exhibiting the weakness of their own spines.Their lack of
support reveals the hypocracy of an "American Exceptionalism" they haven't the courage to trust. Wearing a cowboy hat doesn't make you a hero or an expert on foreign affairs. If these armchair generals think we are the greatest country in the world they should start acting like they believe it
7
There are three Americans held in Iran on trumped up charges, hostages just as embassy personnel were held and Roger Cohen wants the U.S. to open an embassy in Tehran for what purpose? For more prospective hostages?
Mr. Cohen seems to have a naively optimistic view of the regime in Iran, that is an exporter of terrorism and that leads chants of death to the Great Satan and Israel while Obama is willing to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons in fifteen years.
Mr. Cohen seems to have a naively optimistic view of the regime in Iran, that is an exporter of terrorism and that leads chants of death to the Great Satan and Israel while Obama is willing to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons in fifteen years.
1
For Netanyahu and Co., Iran is a convenient bogeyman to keep Israelis in a state of fear. Fear is a mental state conducive to making bad decisions, like reelecting Bibi and other right wing "security" types.
For Rouhani and Co., rational men, attacking Israel (other than verbally) would make absolutely no sense at all. Aside from the direct effects on Iran of Israel's Second Strike submarines, which would almost instantly start lobbing nuclear missiles toward Teheran, it would mean attacking Muslim holy places.
For an Israeli's explanation of this, see "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bomb?" at http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/
For Rouhani and Co., rational men, attacking Israel (other than verbally) would make absolutely no sense at all. Aside from the direct effects on Iran of Israel's Second Strike submarines, which would almost instantly start lobbing nuclear missiles toward Teheran, it would mean attacking Muslim holy places.
For an Israeli's explanation of this, see "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Bomb?" at http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/
6
Obama has made his share of blunders since he became President. This is not one of them.
3
Most Iranians are young and living in the 21st century - not the 7th. Trade and the opening of the internet, hopefully will follow. Our TV won't do too much damage - many of these are educated. Now, Mr Obama, go to work on the Iranian sponsorship of violence.
2
To Mr. Cohen, this feels like a better version of the Dayton Accords. To many others, it feels like a worse version of pushing the "reset" button with the Russians. Can't we learn from our experience with the Iraqis, who made any serious inspection scheme impossible, and who dodged, weaved, obfuscated, and dragged their heels so long that even Bill Clinton lost his patience. There's only one inspection policy with the Iranians that a reasonable person could support: Anytime, anywhere, anyplace. Not some confounded "mechanism to handle disputes" like the president talked about with Thomas Friedman. I've seen that movie before, and it ends badly.
2
This reads a bit like diplomacy's equivalent of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished." It's early days, yet. The final agreement remains to be signed, and the United States's tangle of Middle East alliances may set US and Iran at odds with each other again in the near future. The nuclear agreement, even if it does what it is intended to do, holds no answers for these future problems.
I remember similar declarations of diplomatic victory after the Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords. The media was eager to declare the end of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. And yet, 20 years later, here we are...
I remember similar declarations of diplomatic victory after the Yitzhak Rabin and Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords. The media was eager to declare the end of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. And yet, 20 years later, here we are...
2
The most recent credible assessment of Israel's nuclear capability reports an arsenal of at least fifty weapons.It is therefore,the height of hypocritical hubris,to assume,'presume,the 'sacred sanctimonious right to deny same 'opportunities,to others.One is well aware of past utterances of Iranian catastrophic ultimatums,yet what sovereign country has not made similar asinine statements.North Korea threatens world calamity almost daily.What the opposition to this treaty really envision and embrace,is a dismantling of Iranian nuclear 'knowledge,as evidenced by the sinister assassination of some her leading scientists. They probably already know how to construct a weapon.That can/will,never be negotiated away,sadly.
1
Agree.
As I posted elsewhere:
I pretty much agree with Mr. Friedman and with Mr. Obama. Also pretty much agree with Congressional skeptics. Whatever my country the USA does, and whatever the other countries and parts of countries do, it’s risky and could be catastrophic.
The ultimate risk is the same - WWII all over again followed by WWIII.
The CERTAIN cost of a robust insistent posture is military action, probably on a WWII scale AT THE LEAST.
The certain cost of the President's approach is that those, including myself, who do not entirely believe in his competence, will have even more arguments for wishing someone else had his job immediately. But that is not an option.
I trust I have been clear. I appreciate Mr. Friedman and Mr. Obama for helping me to decide. I am holding my nose, and voting "Go Mr. President, Go!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doct...
As I posted elsewhere:
I pretty much agree with Mr. Friedman and with Mr. Obama. Also pretty much agree with Congressional skeptics. Whatever my country the USA does, and whatever the other countries and parts of countries do, it’s risky and could be catastrophic.
The ultimate risk is the same - WWII all over again followed by WWIII.
The CERTAIN cost of a robust insistent posture is military action, probably on a WWII scale AT THE LEAST.
The certain cost of the President's approach is that those, including myself, who do not entirely believe in his competence, will have even more arguments for wishing someone else had his job immediately. But that is not an option.
I trust I have been clear. I appreciate Mr. Friedman and Mr. Obama for helping me to decide. I am holding my nose, and voting "Go Mr. President, Go!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-obama-doct...
1
Thisgarbage deal will likely end up on the trash heap of history as the three previous joint statements issued promising agreement on the broad outlines with only “technical” details to be worked out. In each case, a final agreement failed because the regime does not want anything detailed or specific put on paper. The mullahs also want to retain all its’ nuclear infrastructure, but most importantly, they want economic sanctions lifted because the hammer blows on the economy caused by falling oil prices and heavy costs related to their funding of four separate proxy wars now in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are pushing the regime to the brink of collapse. Unless the regime can pull the wool over the world’s eyes and convince everyone this is indeed a deal, then it risks failing again and for the mullahs, the stakes might mean their survival.
3
Mr Cohen's commentary is well thought out and hopeful. However, there are real questions about Iranian leadership. The Farsi edition of the 4 page interim and talking accord was very different in tone from the one seen in English by Americans. Of course, Mr Rouhani wants to put the best face on it-but is his best face a real one? One does not know what Mr Khamenei will accept. To have such a momentous agreement subject to the final judgement of a very old religious figure who has not been out of his country for 20 years or more is not the best of worlds. The real power in Iran may well be the Revolutionary Guards military, and Quds forces. I suspect these powerful elements in Iranian government will not accept an agreement which suggests surrendering the ability to continue on to a nuclear weapon.
2
These negotiations, if successfully completed, will draw Iran further into the international economic and social communities.
Unlike most Middle Eastern nations, Iran (Persia) is an ancient nation, and was not a colony of European nations nor of the Ottoman Empire. Iran has a strong self identity and is not internally beset by the tribal or sectarian conflicts of its neighboring countries.
Iran is internally, one of the few stable countries in the entire Middle East. Iran's cooperation is central to solving problems in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and Israel.
Equally important to those countries, is the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, a far less stable and far more repressive and undemocratic nation than Iran.
If Iran and the five nations of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, all agree and comply with the final nuclear agreement, then hopefully this will give those seven nations an incentive to join with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine, to find a way to pacify the Middle East; and to create a sovereign republic of Palestine, with all nations recognizing Israel and Palestine whose capitols would both be in East Jerusalem.
Unlike most Middle Eastern nations, Iran (Persia) is an ancient nation, and was not a colony of European nations nor of the Ottoman Empire. Iran has a strong self identity and is not internally beset by the tribal or sectarian conflicts of its neighboring countries.
Iran is internally, one of the few stable countries in the entire Middle East. Iran's cooperation is central to solving problems in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and Israel.
Equally important to those countries, is the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, a far less stable and far more repressive and undemocratic nation than Iran.
If Iran and the five nations of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, all agree and comply with the final nuclear agreement, then hopefully this will give those seven nations an incentive to join with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Palestine, to find a way to pacify the Middle East; and to create a sovereign republic of Palestine, with all nations recognizing Israel and Palestine whose capitols would both be in East Jerusalem.
5
Excellent analysis. It would be wonderful if this is that first step toward a more stable region. One can only hope that the Obama-haters, warmongers and profiteers will not hold sway.
7
Excellent assessment Roger. Let us all support the next steps.
4
Obama and Rouhani have done what sensible leaders are supposed to do in a negotiation like this: compromise without compromising the safety of their respective countries.
The next steps in the process of developing trust will be verifying each party meets its responsibilities contained in the agreement. Hopefully Obama can keep the congressional war hawks and Israel (Netanyahu) from undermining the process which could lead to reestablishing relations with Iran over the next decade.
For Obama to push this process forward, he should enlist the American public's support, part and parcel of congress. The republicans are very likely to fear a successful resolution to the stalemate with Iran, especially if Obama is to receive any credit.
Its time for the American people to seize this opportunity for peace by giving Obama as much support as possible, especially by directly advising the
congress of it.
The next steps in the process of developing trust will be verifying each party meets its responsibilities contained in the agreement. Hopefully Obama can keep the congressional war hawks and Israel (Netanyahu) from undermining the process which could lead to reestablishing relations with Iran over the next decade.
For Obama to push this process forward, he should enlist the American public's support, part and parcel of congress. The republicans are very likely to fear a successful resolution to the stalemate with Iran, especially if Obama is to receive any credit.
Its time for the American people to seize this opportunity for peace by giving Obama as much support as possible, especially by directly advising the
congress of it.
5
I hope Obama can travel to Iran before his term is over. To signal a new era- not to serve fake turkeys to a bunch of bedraggled US troops. What a contrast! What a triumph!
3
This would be a great achievement, to be able to discuss and respect each other. I live in London and have seen the Queen shaking hand with former Northern Ireland. Any agreement is difficult and painful. But it is worthwhile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18607911
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18607911
3
Comparison to Bosnia is less apt than comparison on nuclear agreement with North Korea. They promised to not build bomb for lifting of sanctions. Sanctions were lifted but they built the bomb. Such high praise for a regime that is wreaking havoc in Yemen, Lebanon, took our diplomats hostage and was behind killing of 215 U.S. marines. This agreement is not an achievement and history will document this.
1
Mr. Cohen, your positive analysis of the possible future relationship between the US and Iran is eye opening.
Could you expand on your historical perspectives about relations between the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan" with Iran before and after 1979 to further illuminate where we are heading.
Oil is often thought as a root cause of middle east troubles. Looking at US political actions in modern Iran, beginning around the junction of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, do you have an opinion regarding any US “meddling" in Great Britain’s exploitation of Iran’s oil resources?
Post 1979, what role did President Reagan’s administration and US forces play during the long war Iraq's Saddam Hussein waged with Iran? What sort of weapons did Hussein employ, and who provided his weapons.
Did the presidential heirs of first president Bush used his political links to the remnants of Hussein's old weapons to tie the US into the very long wars that are still not disentangled? Can you estimate the US and global economic and political costs of that wide ranging middle east engagement?
As for the “Little Satan” - besides Cyrus the Great of Persia, wasn’t Iran helpful to Israel during some of its fuss-ups with various states around their borders, prior to 1979?
Could you expand on your historical perspectives about relations between the “Great Satan” and the “Little Satan" with Iran before and after 1979 to further illuminate where we are heading.
Oil is often thought as a root cause of middle east troubles. Looking at US political actions in modern Iran, beginning around the junction of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, do you have an opinion regarding any US “meddling" in Great Britain’s exploitation of Iran’s oil resources?
Post 1979, what role did President Reagan’s administration and US forces play during the long war Iraq's Saddam Hussein waged with Iran? What sort of weapons did Hussein employ, and who provided his weapons.
Did the presidential heirs of first president Bush used his political links to the remnants of Hussein's old weapons to tie the US into the very long wars that are still not disentangled? Can you estimate the US and global economic and political costs of that wide ranging middle east engagement?
As for the “Little Satan” - besides Cyrus the Great of Persia, wasn’t Iran helpful to Israel during some of its fuss-ups with various states around their borders, prior to 1979?
1
Hmmm...we supported the restoration of the French colonialist regime in Vietnam after World War II (despite Ho Chi Minh's request for the U.S. government to assist in Vietnam achieving its independence.) We went to war with North Vietnam in 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin resolution) and propped up a corrupt South Vietnamese government.
Almost 60,000 American soldiers died in this conflict, with another 150,000 wounded. The war went on for 11 years, after which we withdrew as South Vietnam fell to the north.
40 years later? The world didn't end. Nor did the now-discredited "domino theory" play out as necons predicted. Today, we do business with Vietnam. Tourists travel there. Many things we buy from American store shelves are manufactured in Vietnam (shoes, televisions, etc.).
We may not like the policies of the Vietnamese government, but the country is now a full player in the world marketplace (and a possible ally against Chinese military adventurism).
How does the old saying go? "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
Almost 60,000 American soldiers died in this conflict, with another 150,000 wounded. The war went on for 11 years, after which we withdrew as South Vietnam fell to the north.
40 years later? The world didn't end. Nor did the now-discredited "domino theory" play out as necons predicted. Today, we do business with Vietnam. Tourists travel there. Many things we buy from American store shelves are manufactured in Vietnam (shoes, televisions, etc.).
We may not like the policies of the Vietnamese government, but the country is now a full player in the world marketplace (and a possible ally against Chinese military adventurism).
How does the old saying go? "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."
3
I think President Rouhani said it best,'It is not fight or surrender to the world powers but cooperation with the world'. So true!! Live and let live. Know your boundaries. Peaceful co-existence. Let by-gones be by-gones. We did crazy things to them and they did crazy things to us. The old hostile rhetoric from the crazy Ahmedinajad is not relevant anymore like the man and the days of Iran being in the Axis of Evil could'nt be further from the truth. A new generation with new ideas and aspirations. Hope this is the beginning of a stable relationship of mutual respect if not friendly. Getting that foot in the door was the most difficult part. Kudos to Obama, Kerry, Rouhani, Zarif and the scientists. Forget all old rhetoric, forget a painful past. Look to the future and don't let anybody put a spanner in the works.
4
Humans are intelligent beings who have got to give up their primal instinct to fight for a far better instinct to talk, discuss and come to a common understanding or compromise. Fighting/War has only taken us into a deeper cycle of misery and hatred. Talking, discussing and undertanding will take us to a new level of appreciation and may, just may get us off the cycle of hatred and misery.
4
I watched in full the interview by Mr. Friedman of President Obama. President Obama has been much maligned for his cool, professorial demeanor but I saw the power of prolonged careful reflection in what the president had to say. He had thought through the long game. It is one of his strengths and not a weakness and it serves our country well. Why not take the risk? Everything else so far has failed.
48
How were sanctions failing , oh yeah the Iranians were upset The BiG O's careful reflection , his teleprompter must have been working Did his careful reflection stop the publishing of Israels Nuclear program and the redacting of the US allies.Did the careful reflection cause him to pause 6 more months with Cuba , after all the two countries that subsidies the Cubans are A) Bankrupt B) Out of toilet roll (you pick) The last time Cuba reformed was when Oil prices dumped and they had to. Obama is a terrible terrible strategic thinker and a worse negotiator
The best line in this insightful column: "It is not a bad thing to remind allies that enjoying irrevocable support from the United States cannot mean exercising a veto on American actions." Again, what are the viable alternatives to an agreement? The neocons and their ilk never ask the obvious next question.
3
There is nothing that can be said about war that is good. Anything, even an imperfect treaty, if it prevents war for even one day, it is worth pursuing. This is such a treaty.
2
In his interview with Tom Friedman, President Obama pointed out that Iran poses no direct threat to the United States. That since the US Defense budget is 600B versus an Iranian defense budget of 50B. Iran is not a direct threat. Therefore we have nothing to fear from Iran. Probably true. But if you were a Saudi or Israeli you can take that to mean that in the future the US will only get involved where it is directly threatened. So the rational thing for Saudi and Israel is to realize that they are on their own. So will Saudia Arabia use its contacts with Pakistan to develop its own weapons. Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran are already involved in several proxy wars. Does not take much to see where a series of miscalculations to start a nuclear war. As we get farther and farther from Hiroshima nuclear weapons have lost their some of their fear.
5
This scenario is like an old joke: two campers spot a bear, one launches into helpless panic, the other calmly puts on his sneakers. The frantic one says, "what good are your sneakers, you can't outrun the bear!" The calm one responds, "I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster than you!"
Let's hope this deal bodes for safety all parties, not just those out of a $60 billion military budget striking distance, and a broad rapprochement will achieve not just safety, but ultimately friendship for all parties -- in our lifetime.
Let's hope this deal bodes for safety all parties, not just those out of a $60 billion military budget striking distance, and a broad rapprochement will achieve not just safety, but ultimately friendship for all parties -- in our lifetime.
1
10 year chess match:
Iran will take the money earned by opening up it's economy and invest in it's revolutionary guard forces projects overseas including but not limited to; Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Argentina and Venezuela. Those newly armed fronts will evolve into professional terrorism and war machines from the current 'terrorist' infrastructure that Iran has built to date whose job it has been to deliver murderous events from the Marine Baracks in Lebanon, to the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires.
After 10 years, Iran will have enough high grade nuclear materials to supply their ectopic Revolutionary Guard forces with real nuclear arms.
Then and only then will the west realize they have lost the chess match.
Iran will take the money earned by opening up it's economy and invest in it's revolutionary guard forces projects overseas including but not limited to; Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Argentina and Venezuela. Those newly armed fronts will evolve into professional terrorism and war machines from the current 'terrorist' infrastructure that Iran has built to date whose job it has been to deliver murderous events from the Marine Baracks in Lebanon, to the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires.
After 10 years, Iran will have enough high grade nuclear materials to supply their ectopic Revolutionary Guard forces with real nuclear arms.
Then and only then will the west realize they have lost the chess match.
5
Your basic assumption is that the end goal of Iran is to engage in an apocalyptic confrontation with the west and the United States in particular. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
1
"After 10 years, Iran will have enough high grade nuclear materials to supply their ectopic Revolutionary Guard forces with real nuclear arms."
From where will they get their "high grade nuclear materials"? For at least 15 years they won't be allowed to enrich to more than about 3%, under the eyes of the inspectors and the threat of the sanctions being re-imposed.
And what are these "ectopic" Revolutionary guards?
From where will they get their "high grade nuclear materials"? For at least 15 years they won't be allowed to enrich to more than about 3%, under the eyes of the inspectors and the threat of the sanctions being re-imposed.
And what are these "ectopic" Revolutionary guards?
1
Best of all, in this rapprochement, no annoying ping pong games were necessary!!
3
It is a good read Roger as usual, let us hope and pray that the scuttlers of the deal would take a break and let PEACE win.
Looking forward to going there and visiting the US Embassy.
BTW after the revolution and Hostage crises, a deal was negotiated and Signed by Warren Christopher on Jan 8 1981 during Reagan presidency and it is till being followed by both parties and that is a 34 years track record.
Looking forward to going there and visiting the US Embassy.
BTW after the revolution and Hostage crises, a deal was negotiated and Signed by Warren Christopher on Jan 8 1981 during Reagan presidency and it is till being followed by both parties and that is a 34 years track record.
12
Iran and it's proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah are responsible for much of the Islamic terrorism that has been directed against western targets and Israel for the past 40 years, and there is no demonstrative proof that they have changed their ultimate objectives to destroy Israel and dominate the middle east. With an end to the sanctions, Iran will soon have more resources to perpetrate terror attacks against the west while rearming Hamas in Gaza and providing resources to rebuild the terror tunnels into Israel. Virulent anti Semitism and anti western diatribes are part of the daily fabric of Iranian life. The administration in its incredible naivete has taken a leap of faith that the Iranian regime is interested in normalization with the West, when in fact their main objective is to end sanctions, restore their economy and pursue hegemony in the middle east with the ultimate aim of destroying Israel.
5
You ignore the failure of war launched by GW Bush in 2003 at the urging of Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu -- a leap of faith that strengthened Iran's hand in the region and set back the interests of the United States and Israel. Six thousand Americans died.
War failed. Give diplomacy a chance.
War failed. Give diplomacy a chance.
1
An effort of this kind is long overdue.
Take a look at US policy toward Iran:
1] The CIA overthrew the legitimately elected Mossadegh government and installed the brutal Shah's dictatorship in 1953.
2] After Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, we provided our then-friend Saddam Hussein with intelligence, computers and "agricultural" chemicals that we knew full well would be used to kill vast numbers of Iranians [and Kurds].
3] We accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner with the loss of 290 Iranian lives.
As we enter into these negotiations, our hands are hardly clean.
Take a look at US policy toward Iran:
1] The CIA overthrew the legitimately elected Mossadegh government and installed the brutal Shah's dictatorship in 1953.
2] After Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, we provided our then-friend Saddam Hussein with intelligence, computers and "agricultural" chemicals that we knew full well would be used to kill vast numbers of Iranians [and Kurds].
3] We accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner with the loss of 290 Iranian lives.
As we enter into these negotiations, our hands are hardly clean.
19
It's international politics. Nobody has clean hands, and nobody cares about clean hands.
1
The single most important element for the future is the response of the Iranian people themselves going forward.
4
Iran is anti democratic, anti women, anti west, anti semitic and has a terrible human rights record. Iran sponsors terrorism all over the world and they want nuclear weapons if not sooner than later will do. People shouldn't be so excited about doing business with this regime.
6
This is based on what facts? Israel is just as anti Iran, so what is the difference? Iran is not denying a large portion of its population human rights, it is not annexing a large territory. Try and visit Iran and maybe you will find this society or at least its population to be as open as Israel.
1
Anti democratic: we the light of world fermented a coup in 1953 in Iran to prevent anti colonialist from taking back their country.
Anti women: if this is our talisman for relations, then we need to put countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel (women harassed and spat upon because the don't wear the correct clothing) on the back shelf of relation.
Human rights: can you say Ferguson?
Anti semitic: covers just about every space on the board.
So we should do what to construct international relations? Seems you have blocked every move possible.
Anti women: if this is our talisman for relations, then we need to put countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel (women harassed and spat upon because the don't wear the correct clothing) on the back shelf of relation.
Human rights: can you say Ferguson?
Anti semitic: covers just about every space on the board.
So we should do what to construct international relations? Seems you have blocked every move possible.
1
And the alternative has gotten us where, exactly?
2
The Republicans are disappointed. Deeply. They had been prepping for another war and the neo-cons were getting ready to start foaming at the mouth. Now, they must, they simply must, direct their anger at Obama (as they do always, every day, in every way imaginable).
Visiting the LBJ Library in Austin the other day, there was a quote from Johnson on the wall that went something like this: "If I walked on water across a lake, the headline the next day would be, "President Unable to Swim". This reflects the state of mind of a very large proportion of Americans: Obama can do nothing right. Only when he leaves office will we be relieved of the constant negativity. To accept that he is a person of good will is to reject a major element of their core beliefs.
How do you make good deals with regimes, like Iran's, that have shown themselves to be unreliable, unpredictable and even unstable? We, especially the voters, must realize that the alternative is bombing and that it would not be a "clean, surgical strike", but something that, once again, could pull us into a war that, ultimately, contains the seeds of defeat even when victory is declared.
Visiting the LBJ Library in Austin the other day, there was a quote from Johnson on the wall that went something like this: "If I walked on water across a lake, the headline the next day would be, "President Unable to Swim". This reflects the state of mind of a very large proportion of Americans: Obama can do nothing right. Only when he leaves office will we be relieved of the constant negativity. To accept that he is a person of good will is to reject a major element of their core beliefs.
How do you make good deals with regimes, like Iran's, that have shown themselves to be unreliable, unpredictable and even unstable? We, especially the voters, must realize that the alternative is bombing and that it would not be a "clean, surgical strike", but something that, once again, could pull us into a war that, ultimately, contains the seeds of defeat even when victory is declared.
20
So many opponents of this deal make the tired citation of the 1938 Munich deal with Hitler. It is telling that the opponents keep reaching way back to a 75-yr old event to justify their current point.
No doubt that one did not work. But many others have worked-- not perfectly, but effectively to prevent bloodshed, expand economic cooperation, etc. This deal is entirely in our national interest.
One step at a time.
No doubt that one did not work. But many others have worked-- not perfectly, but effectively to prevent bloodshed, expand economic cooperation, etc. This deal is entirely in our national interest.
One step at a time.
65
Of course those who cite the 38 Munich agreements as a historical parallel to the present have no concept of the agreement and its context--the situation could not be more different.
Without being verbose, Chamberlain was looking at a situation where Britain had no interest in Czechoslovakia and was itself unprepared for a war in western Europe-- in essence buying time as Britain re-armed.
Here, the US could literally pulverize Iran and has vital interests in peaceful relations with the only stable ME country as well as commercial interests.
It's much more complicated but the Chamberlain analogies are painful to read. Great for the LIV I guess.
Without being verbose, Chamberlain was looking at a situation where Britain had no interest in Czechoslovakia and was itself unprepared for a war in western Europe-- in essence buying time as Britain re-armed.
Here, the US could literally pulverize Iran and has vital interests in peaceful relations with the only stable ME country as well as commercial interests.
It's much more complicated but the Chamberlain analogies are painful to read. Great for the LIV I guess.
1
Well said.
Looking back to that period, I think we would be wiser to compare Iran today to Germany at the time of the 1931 proposal for an Austro-German customs union. Had that "zolverein" gone forward, rather than being opposed by the former WWI allies, especially the French and Czechs, the economies of Germany and Austria might have improved to the point that Hitler wouldn't have been elected Chancellor. We'll never know, of course. What we do know, or should, is that continuing to isolate Iran and prevent it's economy from growing will eventually put Iran in a position where it feels that it has nothing to lose. They've seen the stick; time for the carrot.
Looking back to that period, I think we would be wiser to compare Iran today to Germany at the time of the 1931 proposal for an Austro-German customs union. Had that "zolverein" gone forward, rather than being opposed by the former WWI allies, especially the French and Czechs, the economies of Germany and Austria might have improved to the point that Hitler wouldn't have been elected Chancellor. We'll never know, of course. What we do know, or should, is that continuing to isolate Iran and prevent it's economy from growing will eventually put Iran in a position where it feels that it has nothing to lose. They've seen the stick; time for the carrot.
I agree with virtually everything Cohen says, but one mystery remains. Why does the Times and its writers continue to imply, as Friedman did yesterday and Cohen does today that the strife between Iran and the United States began in 1979 with the hostage takings at the US Embassy? That strife actually began in 1953 when the CIA organized a coup against Iran's democratically elected, secular government of Mohammed Mosaddeg, because he put an end to the British colonial control of his country's oil industry. The US installed the Shah in his place, a terribly repressive leader whose regime imprisoned, tortured and murdered dissidents until he was driven out in 1977. These are not wild eyed theories. Obama acknowledged them in his Cairo speech in 2009 and the declassified CIA reports of its role in instigating the coup were declassified in 2013 on its 60th anniversary. Conveniently erasing those 26 years makes the hostage takings in 1979, regrettable as they were, seem like a simple add of madness by crazy people, rather than the very understandable consequences of US foreign policy.
21
maybe, but the politics of Mossadegh, a secular, progressive, democrat have nothing to do with the Islamic extremists who hijacked the Iranian revolution in 1979. The 1953 coup may be a black mark on British and US foreign policy but that does not excuse the anti west, anti woman, anti semitic, and anti human rights despotic regime that controls Iran.
Precisely! And so refreshing to have historical context in your excellent comment.
Bravo!
Bravo!
2
They are referring to state-to-state relations. Although plenty of Iranians may have resented the United States during the Shah's reign, the Iranian state was an ally of the United States.
1
A nation doesn't need pacts with its friends as much as it needs pacts with its enemies. Obama understands this. The only way to welcome Iran back into the tent of nations is to let it in. Then they can be watched and they can be coaxed and they can be rewarded.
Bombing Iran will lead only to more war and more insecurity and more stalemates. Only the war mongers want that.
Bombing Iran will lead only to more war and more insecurity and more stalemates. Only the war mongers want that.
30
Suppose it's concluded, and Iran builds an nuclear weapon and ICBM force, perhaps in 2030 when all the restrictions and verification end (or clandestinely sooner). Will it still "represent the most important American diplomatic accomplishment..."?
5
The NYT hailed the 1938 Munich agreement b/c it gave Hitler less than he had demanded....
4
While this demands a repeat of Kaiser Wilhelm's "Blank Check" to Austria that started all the killing and created Hitler and the Holocaust.
5
Iran has no nuclear warheads while the US has over 6000.
How many does Israel have? More than none, right?
How many does Israel have? More than none, right?
2
Friendship with the Persians will bring the United States huge geopolitical and economic dividends, dividends it will never get from Israel or from the Arabs, in their current state of Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi regression.
Obama won't say this, but he's thinking it. We are turning a big corner.
Obama won't say this, but he's thinking it. We are turning a big corner.
22
you mean "friendship" with an Islamic extremist regime that hangs and stones its own people for disobeying islamic law, and spreads terrorism across the world through it's proxies. This is not a country we should friendship with
3
Are you talking about our good friends the Saudis? Because they are do all of those things and are even more repressive of women.
I think we need to deal in the real world and not talk about historical context.
Iran is a brutal regime. The people of Iran are suffering. Inhumanity is a global concern.
Iran is in a state of war with anyone who does not subscribe to their false and dangerous beliefs. They have many armies fighting in many parts of the world.
The deal will not contain Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. It can not be verified nor is there concrete agreement as to what was actually agreed upon.
Iran has suffered due to severe Bush era sanctions, American fracking, and global conservation. This is not the time to let up on them.
Can a large radical Islamic state be contained? I don't think so. I don't think Western idealism and violent Islamic revolution can coexist forever. One will have to go. It's just a matter of time.
These are the facts, this is not an historical moment, but one of a series of blunders by a completely inept administration.
Iran is a brutal regime. The people of Iran are suffering. Inhumanity is a global concern.
Iran is in a state of war with anyone who does not subscribe to their false and dangerous beliefs. They have many armies fighting in many parts of the world.
The deal will not contain Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions. It can not be verified nor is there concrete agreement as to what was actually agreed upon.
Iran has suffered due to severe Bush era sanctions, American fracking, and global conservation. This is not the time to let up on them.
Can a large radical Islamic state be contained? I don't think so. I don't think Western idealism and violent Islamic revolution can coexist forever. One will have to go. It's just a matter of time.
These are the facts, this is not an historical moment, but one of a series of blunders by a completely inept administration.
4
"These" are most certainly NOT the facts. The deal CAN be verified (read it through) and it is in our interest. Finally, this president may be someone whom you dislike, but he inherited a lousy middle-eastern hand from his predecessor and he's played it as well as could reasonably have been expected. Perhaps you voted for McCain in '08, a man who didn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam. I'll take Obama over the semi-literate Republican know-nothings any day of the week.
32
You write: "iran is a brutal regime." Hello? Have you taken a good look at our ally, Saudi Arabia? And Israel isn't exactly winning any human rights awards these days either!
2
The danger to the world is not from Iran any more it is from the extreme right wing in US and Israel, this is clear from the demands from the Israeli Foreign Minister today. I hope that people who believe in real world peace will have courage to back Obama and defeat this right wing lobby. I was beginning to lose trust in Mr. Cohen, this article has restored my faith in him again.
16
President Obama might well visit Iran. I've read one report that said he wanted to do so. An invitation would not surprise anyone coming from the current President of Iran.
Such a visit would be the first step to re-opening an Embassy. It could come in the next year, if this agreement stands up.
Such a visit would be the first step to re-opening an Embassy. It could come in the next year, if this agreement stands up.
19
Iranian people are the most pro US than any in Mid East. Iran is very rich country, friendship between Iran and US will be beneficial to both. THe old will die and young will want new, America is the the new everybody wants. Iran can provide boot on the ground to fight terrorism, and drugs. US is tired of doing it, providing money and boot for the mid east. Has anyone ever heard any stupid comment, against US or Israel from Messrs Rouhani, or Zarif?
27
Thank you Mr. Cohen for a commentary so well put. Not unexpected of course, but the the words you quoted from President Hassan Rouhani were so well selected, "With those countries with which we have a cold relationship, we would like a better relationship. And if we have tension or hostility with any countries, we want an end to tension and hostility with those countries."
Our President Obama has given us hope- again. Grateful to you for reminding us.
Thank you Mr. Cohen for reminding us.
Our President Obama has given us hope- again. Grateful to you for reminding us.
Thank you Mr. Cohen for reminding us.
101
Short of an invasion of Iran it is not really clear what the alternative is to trying this deal. It is interesting to see virtually the entire Middle East, Israel and the Sunni Arabs joined together in their hostility toward Iran. It does demonstration how really unimportant the Palestinian issue is to most of the Arab World.
17
Simply put, a head of state that is not willing to exhaust all diplomatic options before turning to war, does not deserve to a head of state. Well done President Obama, for potentially turning the page with not only one but two of the US's coldest and longest held oppositions. (Iran and Cuba)
40
First, Mr. Cohen (and Pres. Obama) could have provided a real service had they mentioned the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically government in 1953 as the genesis of every things that followed.
Second, aside from the issue of nuclear weapons, this is about Washington's attempt to bring Iran back into the capitalist fold and a return its pre-'79 role as one bookend (Israel the other) for protecting U.S. economic interests in the region. Evidently, some elements of the Iranian elite are eager to resume this role.
Second, aside from the issue of nuclear weapons, this is about Washington's attempt to bring Iran back into the capitalist fold and a return its pre-'79 role as one bookend (Israel the other) for protecting U.S. economic interests in the region. Evidently, some elements of the Iranian elite are eager to resume this role.
6
I could not agree more. How many Americans know who Mossadeqh was? Or what motivated the Iranian revolutionaries to take U.S. hostages? Or the unconstitutional methods employed to free those hostages involving selling arms to our supposed enemies in Tehran to finance havoc in Central America? Or our encouraging Sadaam Hussein to concurrently engage in a war with Iran that would prove to be one of the longest wars in modern history? And these are just a few highlights among the countless events that have taken place as a result of U.S. policies that are based on seeing the people of other nations merely as chess pieces.
14
The President did mention the 1953 intervention in his interview with Tom Friedman in this paper as part of the historical basis of the enmity.
1
Obama's only mention was "meddling in their democracy."
There is nothing like a Cohen article to distill the nonsense out of what is really important. God bless.
15
Opponents and supporters of the developments agree with this assessment; one can only hope Roger Cohen's part is the true part, not the nonsense-- time will tell. I for one am cautiously optimistic.
1
At this point in time it would be far better to have the US and Iranians in the same room arguing with and debating each other than starting another war that we cannot win, will cost a trillion dollars and sacrifice many lives. Let's give peace a chance and stop expecting the "perfect" deal. President Nixon extended an olive branch to China in 1972, that was 43 years ago and our relationship with China is far from ideal but we have come a long way in US-China relationships and China has slowly joined the rest of the world. Let's se if the small seeds of dialogue and cooperation work in our relationship with Iran.
27
"There’s too much pent-up expectation among Iran’s youth, too much economic possibility, too much pro-Western sentiment in Iran, too much American business interest in Iran. Of course, that’s what Khamenei is afraid of. Yet he’s come this far."
In his ode to the President, are the feet of Dem voters like me, exiting the Party for at least the Presidential contest for 2016. And not liking it, but....
Read the 10-point list of Israeli objections to the Iranian deal's framework" contained in the online edition of the Times of Israel (you won't see a re-print in the NYT, at least not yet). Mr. Cohen wishes us to believe that the best we can do for this "non-hermetic" deal is believe in a deal which does not address;
1. Iranian ICBM technology meant only to carry nuclear warheads;
2. Abandons "anytime, anywhere" inspections in favor of scheduled appointments;
3. fails to explain why the bulk of the sanctions are lifted immediately, and what the mechanism would be to resume sanctions when the Iranians cheat;
4. Abandons demand for a full accounting of Iranian past cheating and lying to UN inspectors and violations of UNSC resolutions and what the iranians hid;
5. no linkage between Iranian hegemonic drives in the Middle East, leading to a possible arms race, including support for the "Butcher of Damascus" and fascist regimes in Gaza and missile support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and the slow but certain takeover of Iraq;
Will Obama now support the Greens?
In his ode to the President, are the feet of Dem voters like me, exiting the Party for at least the Presidential contest for 2016. And not liking it, but....
Read the 10-point list of Israeli objections to the Iranian deal's framework" contained in the online edition of the Times of Israel (you won't see a re-print in the NYT, at least not yet). Mr. Cohen wishes us to believe that the best we can do for this "non-hermetic" deal is believe in a deal which does not address;
1. Iranian ICBM technology meant only to carry nuclear warheads;
2. Abandons "anytime, anywhere" inspections in favor of scheduled appointments;
3. fails to explain why the bulk of the sanctions are lifted immediately, and what the mechanism would be to resume sanctions when the Iranians cheat;
4. Abandons demand for a full accounting of Iranian past cheating and lying to UN inspectors and violations of UNSC resolutions and what the iranians hid;
5. no linkage between Iranian hegemonic drives in the Middle East, leading to a possible arms race, including support for the "Butcher of Damascus" and fascist regimes in Gaza and missile support for Hezbollah, the Houthis and the slow but certain takeover of Iraq;
Will Obama now support the Greens?
4
Read the Friedman interview with the president before you sound off on this.nsome of your points are addressed. Always best to hear the news from the mouth of the newsmaker than through the media that likes to tell us what people said and mean, when they don't listen and give the news their own spin. Friedman gives us the president's own words, which I greatly appreciate.
5
Too many politicians and demagogues both in Iran and the United States have made political hay over demonizing Iran over the past 40 years of estrangement. With so little contact, the exaggerated negative images of both nations have taken hold of the public imagination.
In the United States the image of Iran as a brutal dictatorship full of gloom and desperation, with rabid mullahs serving as puppet masters to terrorists everywhere and lusting after a bomb to drop on Tel Aviv is ridiculous, but only take a look at some of the commentary here to see how widely this is accepted in the U.S. Many conflate Iran with other Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia. Cartoonish versions of this shamelessly promulgated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu don't help.
On the Iranian side images of the United States as desperate to overthrow their government with sneaky spies, in favor of some Western stooge, repress their cultural and scientific accomplishments, steal their resources and instigate cartoonish versions of Las Vegas and Miami Beach lifestyles on the Iranian public are widespread.
Both these images are absurd, but without diplomatic relations and almost complete estrangement until these nuclear talks began, such distorted pictures thrive and are widely believed by naive citizens who never met people from the other State.
That the United States and Iran have not had formal governmental relations with each other for this long is anachronistic in today's world.
In the United States the image of Iran as a brutal dictatorship full of gloom and desperation, with rabid mullahs serving as puppet masters to terrorists everywhere and lusting after a bomb to drop on Tel Aviv is ridiculous, but only take a look at some of the commentary here to see how widely this is accepted in the U.S. Many conflate Iran with other Islamic states, such as Saudi Arabia. Cartoonish versions of this shamelessly promulgated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu don't help.
On the Iranian side images of the United States as desperate to overthrow their government with sneaky spies, in favor of some Western stooge, repress their cultural and scientific accomplishments, steal their resources and instigate cartoonish versions of Las Vegas and Miami Beach lifestyles on the Iranian public are widespread.
Both these images are absurd, but without diplomatic relations and almost complete estrangement until these nuclear talks began, such distorted pictures thrive and are widely believed by naive citizens who never met people from the other State.
That the United States and Iran have not had formal governmental relations with each other for this long is anachronistic in today's world.
11
Netyanahu is asking Obama that prior to any accord Iran must recognize the State of Israel: well, that could be easily obtained if he requested the European Union to accept Israel as one of its members, according to the wishes of the majority of the Israelis.
3
If Netanyahu thinks that a better deal is possible, I suggest that he begin negotiations with Iran. This way, he can see if he can get what he wants. Until then, this is the best that can be achieved and he should be grateful for our efforts at protecting him.
23
Netanyahu knows that this is a good deal and that is exactly why he is so worried. It is in Israel's best interest that the U.S. and Iran remain mortal enemies, and Netanyahu is willing to do anything to make sure détente doesn't happen.
6
The Iranians got whatever they wanted while sanctions are being removed. How is that a move forward in moderating their behavior? Obama is reassuring Israel and Saudi Arabia? Really? Which probably explains why the Saudis have told us that this deal must also be interpreted as giving them the same rights to nuclear enrichment as the Iranians. So instead of having one rogue regime developing nukes and facing near catastrophic economic sanctions in return, we will now have any number of nations developing nuclear breakout capability with the blessings of the UN and international law.
In other words, complete gutting and abandonment of nuclear non-proliferation. In which case, it is only a matter of time before such weaponry gets used again. Well done indeed. Future generations will rank this agreement right up there with Munich.
In other words, complete gutting and abandonment of nuclear non-proliferation. In which case, it is only a matter of time before such weaponry gets used again. Well done indeed. Future generations will rank this agreement right up there with Munich.
5
Kurt:
Your comment is so reality and logic free. Are you suggesting that we go to war with Iran? Is that your suggestion? If not, then you need to explain your plan for keeping Iran nuke free. Otherwise, you are simply part of the problem.
Your comment is so reality and logic free. Are you suggesting that we go to war with Iran? Is that your suggestion? If not, then you need to explain your plan for keeping Iran nuke free. Otherwise, you are simply part of the problem.
7
To Luvtennis0:
It is only reality and logic free if you think that this piece of paper means Iran is not going to build a bomb anyway.
If we walked away from negotiations, Iran may have still built a bomb but the sanctions would have stayed, which would have deterred others from doing the same. Such will no longer be active. So not only will Iran build a bomb, but so will everybody else who feels threatened by that.
The reality and logic free approach is that which supposes the Iranians are going to abide by the terms of this when they never did so before, while further enabling them doing so by giving them access to more resources with which to make mischief and giving official approval for anyone else to do the same.
Again, this agreement will rank up there with Munich.
It is only reality and logic free if you think that this piece of paper means Iran is not going to build a bomb anyway.
If we walked away from negotiations, Iran may have still built a bomb but the sanctions would have stayed, which would have deterred others from doing the same. Such will no longer be active. So not only will Iran build a bomb, but so will everybody else who feels threatened by that.
The reality and logic free approach is that which supposes the Iranians are going to abide by the terms of this when they never did so before, while further enabling them doing so by giving them access to more resources with which to make mischief and giving official approval for anyone else to do the same.
Again, this agreement will rank up there with Munich.
3
Spoken sullenly but also with "full metal" ignorance. Here are some of the details of the rather substantial roll-back + inspections outlined in the framework, which have yet to be finalized:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good
If you're planning to oppose, oppose for some reasons that don't appear 100% unhinged from the progress documented in the framework.
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good
If you're planning to oppose, oppose for some reasons that don't appear 100% unhinged from the progress documented in the framework.
4
The deal is good, considering the alternative. We destroyed Iraq, Libya is not doing any better, Afghanistan is not great, should we try something different? Does anybody thinks that with level of chaos in the middle east, bombing Iran will accomplish something positive?
19
Israel is way more of a nuclear threat in the mideast than Iran. Israel feels threatened, penned in, paranoid, and is led by a bellicose, unstable leader supported by neocons and warhawks in the US who are itching for another war to benefit the military industrial complex.
Perhaps Israel will agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities and signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Let the laughter begin.
Perhaps Israel will agree to inspections of its nuclear facilities and signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty? Let the laughter begin.
39
You would feel threatened too if your neighbors were determined to wipe you off the map.
2
The best way to rid the Mideast of nuclear weapons is for Israel to initiate disarmament talks. Being a prima donna and whining from the sidelines won't work any more. Talks can go on forever: as Churchill said, jaw jaw is better than war war. Why is the West not insisting that Israel do so? It is time for Israel to respect its neighbors.
One consequence of the current discussions will be to cast a harsh light on the extent to which Israel has in the past controlled our Mideast policy. It is time now for Israel to fix its own house by addressing the Palestinians' rights in good faith, and for us to put our interests first.
One consequence of the current discussions will be to cast a harsh light on the extent to which Israel has in the past controlled our Mideast policy. It is time now for Israel to fix its own house by addressing the Palestinians' rights in good faith, and for us to put our interests first.
23
"Renewed disappointment is not implausible." Arguably, renewed disappointment is inevitable. The crux of the matter, though, is how the parties respond to that disappointment. Even though the deal has not yet been "concluded" or "formalized", I would say that a return to the old ways can no longer be possible. If only for the reason that what is on offer, and what is possible, is just too enticing.
After having read Thomas Friedman's interview with Mr. Obama, I again recall that phrase from Mr. Obama's inauguration address, "You will find an outstretched hand, if you will only unclench your fist." To me there is a clear track from that statement to the current prospective deal with Iran.
Yet another thing I find inspiring about America.
After having read Thomas Friedman's interview with Mr. Obama, I again recall that phrase from Mr. Obama's inauguration address, "You will find an outstretched hand, if you will only unclench your fist." To me there is a clear track from that statement to the current prospective deal with Iran.
Yet another thing I find inspiring about America.
13
Tye alternative to trust and hope? War and further devastation of both countries and millions of refugees . Israel has the bomb and they are lead by a arrogant idealoge and I would say are dangerous to the middle east peace. They are constantly wanting to have us fight Iran and they are paying our politicians to promote this. "Bomb,Bomb.Bomb Iran" was a theme song during the last Repub Presidental campaign. Who are the most likely cause of an explosive war in the middle east?
16
Great piece by Mr. Cohen. He is absolutely correct, as is President Obama. We need to do everything possible to try and get along with Iran. Too much is at stake.
10
Aside from his personal views, Netanyahu is forced to appease the extreme right wing. He needs them to provide sufficient support for him to form a government. It is of concern that he seems to believe the American people would support or elect people wanting to go to war against Iran. The reality is that any military action against Iran would result in a war that would make Iraq look like a training exercise. If our Republican "brothers" don't see, one has to wonder what they learned from Iraq. More would have gotten the job done???
The notion that we can unilaterally control the outcome here is simply wrong.
Thank God for President Obama and his clear vision, keeping us out of Libya, Syria, and very restricted support for the fight against ISIS.
The notion that we can unilaterally control the outcome here is simply wrong.
Thank God for President Obama and his clear vision, keeping us out of Libya, Syria, and very restricted support for the fight against ISIS.
12
Mr. Cohen, how can you have a deal on nukes without a deal on ICBM's ?
2
well said as always Roger. This deal will be a huge win for obama admin.
Well done president obama and Mr Kerry.
Well done president obama and Mr Kerry.
9
A huge win for peace in the region and preventing another disastrous war. Who cares about the political win aspect.
2
The United States cannot attack militarily every country with which we do not agree, much as the neocons would like to see that happen. The third way is the best way forward.
14
Now, if we can keep Israel and the Saudis calm, we might get somewhere. I don't know Saudi Arabia, I love Israel, and I'm looking forward to meeting Iran.
4
Roger, do you honestly think that re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran in 2019 to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the most humiliating episode in 20th century American history is such a good idea? Hey, why don't we take it one step further and let Jimmy Carter (if he's still around at that time) preside at the re-opening ceremonies.
2
Hmm. The hostage taking in Tehran was more humiliating than Pearl Harbor?
6
Is it too early to put Invasion of Iraq on the list of the 21st-century's most humiliating episodes? Also, there are some event in Viet Nam that I'd like to nominate for the 20th-century list.
2
Rouhani seems to be the man with the vision. The man with the future in his eye. Luckily for him and for us, Obama is much like him. I have no doubt Rouhani and his team came to the table (as did they in 2003 to be fair), with the express intent to make a deal.
This is his moment to seize. His first stop after finalizing this deal needs to be Riyadh to form a partnership with them to stabilize the ME and defeat ISIS.
Obama likewise, should make Tel Aviv his first stop and finally speak with the Israeli people over the Likudnik's heads. We know that at least a third of Israelis are rational and just people, who understand the fragility of their situation as well their history.
This is his moment to seize. His first stop after finalizing this deal needs to be Riyadh to form a partnership with them to stabilize the ME and defeat ISIS.
Obama likewise, should make Tel Aviv his first stop and finally speak with the Israeli people over the Likudnik's heads. We know that at least a third of Israelis are rational and just people, who understand the fragility of their situation as well their history.
4
Thank you for your enlightened thoughts and your courage to present them. I can imagine that you are receiving some pretty negative email or correspondence...
Your point on the US strategic interests will ultimately tip the scale I think. Yes, the GOP will scream and shout, but our strategic interests will not be denied. We MUST balance our relationships with the Saudis and Israelis (as well as the Turks and others). They cannot dictate our economic and security direction to the extent that they have before. Israel and Netanyahu's clinging to the GOP just highlights to me their desperation -- and desperation is about weakness and vulnerability. It is critical that we press forward. There will be, I predict, continued and possibly escalating demonstrations of displeasure from Israel and the Saudis, but we must go forward. It is frustrating that the GOP do not share a true love and knowledge of America's interests in their need to show up Obama. It is very sad and will be, to me, an emblem of shame in the history books. Not that any of them read, much less understand history.
Your point on the US strategic interests will ultimately tip the scale I think. Yes, the GOP will scream and shout, but our strategic interests will not be denied. We MUST balance our relationships with the Saudis and Israelis (as well as the Turks and others). They cannot dictate our economic and security direction to the extent that they have before. Israel and Netanyahu's clinging to the GOP just highlights to me their desperation -- and desperation is about weakness and vulnerability. It is critical that we press forward. There will be, I predict, continued and possibly escalating demonstrations of displeasure from Israel and the Saudis, but we must go forward. It is frustrating that the GOP do not share a true love and knowledge of America's interests in their need to show up Obama. It is very sad and will be, to me, an emblem of shame in the history books. Not that any of them read, much less understand history.
7
Cohen's inane comparison with Dayton Accords is apt, but not for the reasons he imagines. All American goodwill and international efforts could not turn Slobodan Milosevic from the bloodthirsty nationalist thug that he was into a European statesman he never wanted to be. So it took another aggression, another war, direct American involvement and a ruinous blockade of Serbia (plus a timely weakness of Russia) to get rid of Milosevic and his regime and turn Serbia into a (still problematic) European nation.
Cohen would be advised to re-read his history, but, of course, he is quite incapable of drawing any conclusions which do not confirm to his prefabricated opinions. After all, this is a man who could claim that Iranian Jews are safe and sound, and Israel is an apartheid state.
Cohen has no trouble denying the obvious threat Iran poses to Israel, its singular commitment to Israel's destruction (which even Obama was forced to admit). Cohen seems to believe that, whatever the dangers the America's allies in the region will be forced to face because of American unthinking appeasement of terrorist aggressors in Iran, they will be forced to kowtow to the mighty Obama and suffer in silence.
Cohen will be disappointed in this, as in many other things.
Cohen would be advised to re-read his history, but, of course, he is quite incapable of drawing any conclusions which do not confirm to his prefabricated opinions. After all, this is a man who could claim that Iranian Jews are safe and sound, and Israel is an apartheid state.
Cohen has no trouble denying the obvious threat Iran poses to Israel, its singular commitment to Israel's destruction (which even Obama was forced to admit). Cohen seems to believe that, whatever the dangers the America's allies in the region will be forced to face because of American unthinking appeasement of terrorist aggressors in Iran, they will be forced to kowtow to the mighty Obama and suffer in silence.
Cohen will be disappointed in this, as in many other things.
2
What a very positive assessment. Thank you, Roger. We hope you are right. At the very least, whether things go so well or not from here forward, the moment should not be wasted. The world can breathe a bit more easily because of the diplomacy you have chronicled.
6
This is a great summary of the value of forging war and fighting for diplomacy. A sorta reverse of Clausewitz: If "war is diplomacy by other means," as Clausewitz famously said, then this rightfully turns it back around: "This, finally, is diplomacy, a better means of attaining our interests than war."
5
It never ceases to amaze me that Iran, a sovereign state, is treated differently than countries which possess the bomb, Pakistan and Israel among them. There is one obvious reason: you can't do anything about it. And there is a less openly declared reason: Iran is bad. If every politician's words are forever taken seriously, not only the mad Ahmadinejad's threats should enjoy this respect, but also Netanyahu's threats toward Iran. To weigh one of the two favorably, the other negatively, is a glaring bias.
13
Were I at all religious, I might drop to my knees and thank god for the Roger Cohen's of this world. um, heck, I just might do it anyway!
4
"The Shah is dead. Long live the Shah!" A "new" Shah in Persia's political future ain't gonna' happen. There is every reason to believe, however, that both an American and an Israeli embassy will again become a fixture of Tehran's embassy row.
What is of supreme importance in my view is not so much a complete understanding between opposing forces as that both sides keep on talkiing to each another. I have read recently that the Iranian people truly want to rejoin the international community. If the Mullahs in Qum have even one ounce of intelligence they will listen to what the people they claim to lead have to say. The Shah of Iran was not a "permanent" fixture and neither are the Mullahs.
It might also be said that a war fought with atom bombs might prove that the human habitation of this planet is not a permanent fixture either.
What is of supreme importance in my view is not so much a complete understanding between opposing forces as that both sides keep on talkiing to each another. I have read recently that the Iranian people truly want to rejoin the international community. If the Mullahs in Qum have even one ounce of intelligence they will listen to what the people they claim to lead have to say. The Shah of Iran was not a "permanent" fixture and neither are the Mullahs.
It might also be said that a war fought with atom bombs might prove that the human habitation of this planet is not a permanent fixture either.
4
The much derided President is a pragmatist, no bad thing in the current political climate of Washington.
The President is well aware of Netanyahu's, and for that matter Saudi intentions towards Iran. Both hate each other in the open playing to their domestic audiences but behind the scenes the story is very different.
Previous administrations have caused the problems that permeate throughout the ME today, policies that have allowed Israel and its lobbyists to direct American foreign policy to the detriment of its national interest.
Obama is trying to amend these errors of judgements and is playing the long diplomatic game of bringing Iran back into the international community. However, questions need to be raised as to why such stringent terms are bring brought against Iran when Israel with over 200 warheads has consistently denied having any and has never allowed international inspection of same. Would it not be fair for Israel to sign the NPT or perhaps disarm.
From Iran's perspective, Israel with its stockpile is the existential threat facing its future. Netanyahu can bluster all he likes, and he certainly does but his vision is of a Greater Goliath and total hegemony over the entire region. President Obama is well aware that he will have to fight his own countrymen to pass this through the house.
The President is well aware of Netanyahu's, and for that matter Saudi intentions towards Iran. Both hate each other in the open playing to their domestic audiences but behind the scenes the story is very different.
Previous administrations have caused the problems that permeate throughout the ME today, policies that have allowed Israel and its lobbyists to direct American foreign policy to the detriment of its national interest.
Obama is trying to amend these errors of judgements and is playing the long diplomatic game of bringing Iran back into the international community. However, questions need to be raised as to why such stringent terms are bring brought against Iran when Israel with over 200 warheads has consistently denied having any and has never allowed international inspection of same. Would it not be fair for Israel to sign the NPT or perhaps disarm.
From Iran's perspective, Israel with its stockpile is the existential threat facing its future. Netanyahu can bluster all he likes, and he certainly does but his vision is of a Greater Goliath and total hegemony over the entire region. President Obama is well aware that he will have to fight his own countrymen to pass this through the house.
8
Yet another example of Cohen's hippie philosophy: "TRUST, but don't verify." Put a flower in the barrel of a rifle and all the wars will stop. Cue James Taylor and sing a song.
Roger, wake up from your stupor. There is no agreement here. It's an agreement to agree, in other words, it's meaningless. The Iranians are negotiating to rid itself of sanctions, while the foolish, feckless, friendless Obama thinks his negotiating to prevent them from getting the bomb. No one is fooled, except for Kerry and Obama...and the NYTimes. The Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, UAE, and a dozen othe Arab countries aren't because they are fighting Iran's proxies as we speak, 400,000 dead, hundreds of thousands tortured, raped, crucified, enslaved, 11 million displaced. They support the monster Assad and his killing machine, and those Shiite militia that "liberated" Tirkit the other dayand slaughtered thousands of Sunnis in their wake. Imagine what will happen when they get the bomb.
Roger, wake up from your stupor. There is no agreement here. It's an agreement to agree, in other words, it's meaningless. The Iranians are negotiating to rid itself of sanctions, while the foolish, feckless, friendless Obama thinks his negotiating to prevent them from getting the bomb. No one is fooled, except for Kerry and Obama...and the NYTimes. The Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, UAE, and a dozen othe Arab countries aren't because they are fighting Iran's proxies as we speak, 400,000 dead, hundreds of thousands tortured, raped, crucified, enslaved, 11 million displaced. They support the monster Assad and his killing machine, and those Shiite militia that "liberated" Tirkit the other dayand slaughtered thousands of Sunnis in their wake. Imagine what will happen when they get the bomb.
6
"The Iranians are negotiating to rid itself of sanctions,"...which is the very reason the sanctions were imposed. See how that works? How well did invading Iraq work?
Are you actually suggesting that we make a hard choice between Sunni and Shiite?
Are you actually suggesting that we make a hard choice between Sunni and Shiite?
2
You have watched way too many movies where the lone voice in the wilderness saves the day. I would suspect that Kerry and Obama know more about must about everything than you do.
1
Hats off to Roger Cohen. Now does it not up behoove the NY Times to publish Netanyahu's testimony to our Congress in which he explained the necessity for the United States to have a pre-emptive attack on Iraq or suffer their weapons of mass destruction? Now Netanyahu and his fifth column US Neocons, with a lot of well bought members of congress, and Israel firsters are repeating the same lies to have us commit are blood and borrowed dollars for a another disastrous pre-emptive war against Iran.
13
A hermetic nuclear deal with Iran probably isn’t possible, so we’ve settled for one as porous as a sponge, and surrendered sanctions, the one point of leverage that we had that actually had them so much on the ropes that they threw a Hail Mary pass at Barack Obama and were astonished that he caught it in his teeth.
The Iranian deal will only be the “most important American diplomatic achievement since the Dayton Accords” if, in its final form, it actually succeeds. Otherwise, it’s equivalent to all the other failed international gambits Mr. Obama has offered.
The president has changed the strategic dynamic in the Middle East? Our traditional regional allies are preparing to acquire their own deterrent capacities, we have done nothing to dissuade Iran from its role as greatest state-sponsor of terror in the region, and Israel may unilaterally strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, possibly precipitating a major war.
And why would Israel believe that simply because Mr. Obama voices “irrevocable support” for them and their safety, that, should it be directly attacked, we won’t rationalize an abandonment? After all, we made it crystal clear that we wouldn’t tolerate a Syria that used chemical weapons, and what happened? We made it crystal clear for years that we wouldn’t tolerate a nuclearized Iran, and what happened? We’ve become the world’s greatest rationalizer.
This deal may go down in history as one of our most egregious strategic blunders.
The Iranian deal will only be the “most important American diplomatic achievement since the Dayton Accords” if, in its final form, it actually succeeds. Otherwise, it’s equivalent to all the other failed international gambits Mr. Obama has offered.
The president has changed the strategic dynamic in the Middle East? Our traditional regional allies are preparing to acquire their own deterrent capacities, we have done nothing to dissuade Iran from its role as greatest state-sponsor of terror in the region, and Israel may unilaterally strike at Iranian nuclear facilities, possibly precipitating a major war.
And why would Israel believe that simply because Mr. Obama voices “irrevocable support” for them and their safety, that, should it be directly attacked, we won’t rationalize an abandonment? After all, we made it crystal clear that we wouldn’t tolerate a Syria that used chemical weapons, and what happened? We made it crystal clear for years that we wouldn’t tolerate a nuclearized Iran, and what happened? We’ve become the world’s greatest rationalizer.
This deal may go down in history as one of our most egregious strategic blunders.
28
"sanctions, the one point of leverage"....Good, you got one of two important pieces of information correct. The second piece of information is that the sanctions were effective because they were supported by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, who were also part of the negotiations. So explain how you continue effective "sanctions, the one point of leverage" without their support going forward?
18
The most egregious strategic blunder in our recent history was the ill-advised destruction of Iraq. The unintended consequences of that action are with us today but at least it has exposed the real state-sponsored terrorism funded by our "traditional regional allies", the result being the Sunni insurgency of ISIS. Rationalize that.
6
may go down in history as one of our most egregious strategic blunders.” It is much more likely to go down in history as an essential step in bringing peace in the middle East by calling the bluff of inveterate warmongers.
5
"the logic of that interest is irrefutable" - just because you think so doesn't make it so. Isreal and Saudi Arabia, dependable allies, beg to differ.
"blocking Iran's path to a bomb" - or guaranteeing a path, even if somewhat delayed. 10 yrs means nothing to fanatics with a cultural longterm perspective.
"stable power hostile to the butchers of the Islamic State" - just because Iran fights against a common enemy does not make them trustworthy or desirable as an ally. Perhaps their fight with the Islamic State is one of who will carry the Shiite fanatical leadership banner.
This whole editorial is so blatantly one-sided. History will judge. Many of us are not so confident of its judgement. The Munich Agreement likely had a similar false attraction.
"blocking Iran's path to a bomb" - or guaranteeing a path, even if somewhat delayed. 10 yrs means nothing to fanatics with a cultural longterm perspective.
"stable power hostile to the butchers of the Islamic State" - just because Iran fights against a common enemy does not make them trustworthy or desirable as an ally. Perhaps their fight with the Islamic State is one of who will carry the Shiite fanatical leadership banner.
This whole editorial is so blatantly one-sided. History will judge. Many of us are not so confident of its judgement. The Munich Agreement likely had a similar false attraction.
4
The extreme right-wing GOP that was the Project for the New American Century ("PNAC") cabal of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Jeb Bush created today's Middle East problem areas with the STUPID attack on Iraq, and hoped that an endless "war on terror" would freeze Americans' thinking and actions.
For rational people, this was not the case, and reason on both the Iranian and American sides seems to have won out.
The problems now are preening, narcissistic politicians on ALL sides (but especially here in the United States--Tom Cotton and other "bomb Iran" idiots come to mind--and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel). These individuals have built their gravy trains--hopefully permanent--on exploiting fear in their populations and having it lead to power, not to mention exacerbating hatreds.
For rational people, this was not the case, and reason on both the Iranian and American sides seems to have won out.
The problems now are preening, narcissistic politicians on ALL sides (but especially here in the United States--Tom Cotton and other "bomb Iran" idiots come to mind--and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel). These individuals have built their gravy trains--hopefully permanent--on exploiting fear in their populations and having it lead to power, not to mention exacerbating hatreds.
14
Iran is at war with Israel. Through the words of its leaders, through terror thoughout the world, through Hezbollah, through Hamas and through its nuclear weapons development program. As long as this state of war persists, Israel will be thoroughly justified in taking whatever actions against Iranian nuclear facilities and personnel that are needed to.protect itself, notwithstanding any agreements between the President and the Ayatollah. Go to it, Mr. Netanyahu.
28
"Iran is at war with Israel."
I disagree. I think Israel is using Iran and the apocryphal statement attributed to Ahmadinejad regarding "wiping Israel off the map" to divert the attention of the world from what it is doing to the Palestinians. Israel needs to grow up and make the right decisions regarding Palestinians and not use Iran as an excuse.
I disagree. I think Israel is using Iran and the apocryphal statement attributed to Ahmadinejad regarding "wiping Israel off the map" to divert the attention of the world from what it is doing to the Palestinians. Israel needs to grow up and make the right decisions regarding Palestinians and not use Iran as an excuse.
4
Netanyahu is scared to death of Iran, that's obvious. He's shaking in his boots. He scared the Israelis enough to vote for him again. Good for Obama that he didn't cave to Israel's interests. Israel's only interest is in itself.
3
Israel would have us believe they are at war with everyone around them (including many in France) Maybe Israel should make peace with their neighbors, including their residents the Arabs and maybe things will change for them.
2
Roger Cohen for Chairman of the Board of Common Sense.Com.
ps Common sense is not common.
ps Common sense is not common.
4
Mr. Obama is poised for an outstanding legacy, good work!
8
I have never found any evidence that Iran is intent on the destruction
of Israel. If the past forty years has shown anything about Iran, it's
that they are the among the most rational players in the middle east
This is a low bar to be sure, but Iran has consistently acted as
expected of a sovereign nation, with it's ultimate concern the
furthering of it's own strategic interests. However convenient it
might be for some of Iran's leaders to spout anti-Israel and anti-US
rhetoric, they are firmly aware of the fact that there is no
conceivable situation in which a nuclear weapon could used. Israel
has a full nuclear capability and the United States has never wavered
from complete support of Israel in the case of an attack. Any nuclear
weapon used against Israel would result in an overwhelming retaliation
against the people of Iran. Nor is there any evidence that Iran is
even inclined to do so. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was subject to
attack by chemical weapons and never responded in kind.
Overall, as Cohen and others have pointed out, this agreement has
flaws, but it is an agreement between Iran and the major powers of the
world. There is essentially no downside to following it through to the
end with the reasonable belief that it will result in a saner, safer
world for everyone, Israel included.
of Israel. If the past forty years has shown anything about Iran, it's
that they are the among the most rational players in the middle east
This is a low bar to be sure, but Iran has consistently acted as
expected of a sovereign nation, with it's ultimate concern the
furthering of it's own strategic interests. However convenient it
might be for some of Iran's leaders to spout anti-Israel and anti-US
rhetoric, they are firmly aware of the fact that there is no
conceivable situation in which a nuclear weapon could used. Israel
has a full nuclear capability and the United States has never wavered
from complete support of Israel in the case of an attack. Any nuclear
weapon used against Israel would result in an overwhelming retaliation
against the people of Iran. Nor is there any evidence that Iran is
even inclined to do so. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iran was subject to
attack by chemical weapons and never responded in kind.
Overall, as Cohen and others have pointed out, this agreement has
flaws, but it is an agreement between Iran and the major powers of the
world. There is essentially no downside to following it through to the
end with the reasonable belief that it will result in a saner, safer
world for everyone, Israel included.
261
The republicans and their buddy, Bibi, believe as gospel when the Ayatollah says they will drive Israel into the sea. But he is a liar when he says Iran's reading of the Koran forbids nuclear weapons.
He doesn't have the capability to destroy either Israel or America, he does have the power, however, to change Iran's course of action in the area. Which he seems to be doing.
He doesn't have the capability to destroy either Israel or America, he does have the power, however, to change Iran's course of action in the area. Which he seems to be doing.
"I have never found any evidence that Iran is intent on the destruction
of Israel."
??? Have you ever considered watching the news or listening to the mullahs' speeches regarding?
of Israel."
??? Have you ever considered watching the news or listening to the mullahs' speeches regarding?
I agree with you. Iran is way more rational than most Arab nations in the Middle East. However, Israel's paranoia is not utterly unjustified. It is a very small country. One small nuclear bomb hit and it is gone. Naturally, this will not happen. But the cynical, unacceptable verbiage, which many Iranian politicians have used against Israel explains the reaction of a country the citizens of which are descendants of holocaust and pogroms victims.
A very sensible article from Mr. Cohen.
The Iranians appear desperate for a deal, and lets not fool ourselves otherswise, Iran made the concessions it made with implicit support from Al Khamenei.
I am disappointed with the rhetoric emanating from the conservatives in the US. Polarization or pandering is no substitute for a foreign policy.
And, Mr. Netanyayu...he appears to me as a fool sawing the branch (read United States) he is sitting on. I hope history doesnt record him as a leader who harmed Isreali interests more than its enemies combined.
The Iranians appear desperate for a deal, and lets not fool ourselves otherswise, Iran made the concessions it made with implicit support from Al Khamenei.
I am disappointed with the rhetoric emanating from the conservatives in the US. Polarization or pandering is no substitute for a foreign policy.
And, Mr. Netanyayu...he appears to me as a fool sawing the branch (read United States) he is sitting on. I hope history doesnt record him as a leader who harmed Isreali interests more than its enemies combined.
9
Roger,
GREAT stuff as always....
HOWEVER we need to remind ourselves that the "Direction Of Any Relationship" is determined by the "Posture & Tone" of the Stronger party, in this case the US.
IN essence Iran's Behavior has been a reaction to countless attempts for "Regime Change", championed by the US and as the US finally came to realize that "All Options Can Not Be On The Table" and that "Diplomacy & Dialog Is The Only Option"; we should all expect marked change in Iran's Conduct.
AS For Normalizing Relations With Iran, As A Minimum The US Must Establish A Commercial Consular Office In Tehran So To Allow The US Companies To Enter A Huge Market Along With The EU, Russia, China, Japan et al "Soon After" Concluding The June 2015 P5+1 Agreement With Iran.
GREAT stuff as always....
HOWEVER we need to remind ourselves that the "Direction Of Any Relationship" is determined by the "Posture & Tone" of the Stronger party, in this case the US.
IN essence Iran's Behavior has been a reaction to countless attempts for "Regime Change", championed by the US and as the US finally came to realize that "All Options Can Not Be On The Table" and that "Diplomacy & Dialog Is The Only Option"; we should all expect marked change in Iran's Conduct.
AS For Normalizing Relations With Iran, As A Minimum The US Must Establish A Commercial Consular Office In Tehran So To Allow The US Companies To Enter A Huge Market Along With The EU, Russia, China, Japan et al "Soon After" Concluding The June 2015 P5+1 Agreement With Iran.
2
no one does the good cop-bad cop routine better than the theocrats and their front men
1
'Perhaps the most significant words after the agreement came from Rouhani: “Some think that we must either fight the world or surrender to world powers. We say it is neither of those, there is a third way. We can have cooperation with the world.”'
'He added: “With those countries with which we have a cold relationship, we would like a better relationship. And if we have tension or hostility with any countries, we want an end to tension and hostility with those countries.”'
Can anyone imagine a Republican uttering such reasonable words as the Iranian President ?
Could anyone imagine a Republican exercising the degree of thoughtful diplomacy demonstrated by President Obama, Secretary Kerry and their team during this fine act of diplomacy ?
D to go forward peacefully; R to go to war.
Thank you, President Obama, a man who really loves his country.
'He added: “With those countries with which we have a cold relationship, we would like a better relationship. And if we have tension or hostility with any countries, we want an end to tension and hostility with those countries.”'
Can anyone imagine a Republican uttering such reasonable words as the Iranian President ?
Could anyone imagine a Republican exercising the degree of thoughtful diplomacy demonstrated by President Obama, Secretary Kerry and their team during this fine act of diplomacy ?
D to go forward peacefully; R to go to war.
Thank you, President Obama, a man who really loves his country.
131
I have the perfect candidate for our first US Ambassador to Iran since 1979--Barack Obama. Obama's term ends in 2017 and he's still a young guy who will need a new project to keep him busy Who better to re-open the old embassy than former President Obama, the man who agreed to give Iran anything it wants?
4
"As he reassures worried allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia . . . "
These are not allies, these are desparate men trying to stop Iran from coming to power, even to the point of deliberately trying to discredit our own president in our own country. I am sure they are most afraid that the old and knowledgeable people of Persia come into their own, that this Arab country will outshine the outlandish politics of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
These are not allies, these are desparate men trying to stop Iran from coming to power, even to the point of deliberately trying to discredit our own president in our own country. I am sure they are most afraid that the old and knowledgeable people of Persia come into their own, that this Arab country will outshine the outlandish politics of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
2
It seems to me that two factors stand in the way of an enhanced relationship between the U.S. and Iran. First, Iran needs to stop propping up the regime of Bashar al-Assad. So long as they continue to do so ISIS will continue to be a threat in Syria and, most likely, in Iraq. If Iran really does want to put an end to these Sunni extremists they need to support a resolution in Syria that will either eliminate or, at least, minimize Assad's own reign of terror. Second, Iran needs to be open to accepting the existence of the state of Israel. I can certainly understand their impulse to stand by the Palestinian Arabs but it would be helpful if Rouhani were to explicitly affirm that Iran would move to recognize Israel if an agreement between Israel and Fatah (if not Hamas) ended with the establishment of a Palestinian state.
2
Take it easy Mr. Cohen. Not so fast! A symbolic Embassy compound open to mob agitation is immensely counterproductive.
2
This op-ed by Roger Cohen, coupled with the revealing policy making interview with President Obama by Tom Friedman also in today's NYT edition underscores for me the true importance of diplomacy in avoiding conflict.
I spent the majority of my military career either in the Middle East, or in the Pentagon in strategic planning for the region. Nothing was, and continues to be, more frustrating than the assertion that bombing or invading a country will somehow bring an end to a particular threat to us and to our allies.
A case in point was the recent op-ed by John Bolton, arguing the necessity for bombing Iran, a refrain that exposes just how little he learned of the futility of this simplistic option.
Bombing an adversary that poses an imminent threat to our national security so as to defuse the immediacy of the threat while allowing us to put together a more effective strategy is one thing, but thinking that bombing by itself is a rational option is lunacy.
Bolton's, and other neocons' demands ignores that, should we bomb Iran, it will most certainly defend itself, and do so in such a manner that the entire region might well explode in violence. Do we really want to see all Gulf oil shipping come to a prolonged halt that will have serious economic impact on Europe and Asia, mob violence directed against most Arabian Peninsula monarchies, a third and especially violent intifada in the West Bank and Gaza, Hezbollah missiles rained on northern Israel by the hundreds?
I spent the majority of my military career either in the Middle East, or in the Pentagon in strategic planning for the region. Nothing was, and continues to be, more frustrating than the assertion that bombing or invading a country will somehow bring an end to a particular threat to us and to our allies.
A case in point was the recent op-ed by John Bolton, arguing the necessity for bombing Iran, a refrain that exposes just how little he learned of the futility of this simplistic option.
Bombing an adversary that poses an imminent threat to our national security so as to defuse the immediacy of the threat while allowing us to put together a more effective strategy is one thing, but thinking that bombing by itself is a rational option is lunacy.
Bolton's, and other neocons' demands ignores that, should we bomb Iran, it will most certainly defend itself, and do so in such a manner that the entire region might well explode in violence. Do we really want to see all Gulf oil shipping come to a prolonged halt that will have serious economic impact on Europe and Asia, mob violence directed against most Arabian Peninsula monarchies, a third and especially violent intifada in the West Bank and Gaza, Hezbollah missiles rained on northern Israel by the hundreds?
13
This deal might prevent the Iranians from gaining a nuclear bomb, that is a very good thing. It will not, however, free the Iranians from the rule of corrupt Islamic Mullahs, it will help to preserve that rule with more resources. I wouldn't be surprised to see a crackdown on the Iranian youth which the author claims to favor right after the final agreement is signed. The Mullahs have given up something for this accord and they will demand their pound of flesh for doing so.
With more money, Iran will double down on their colonial expansion throughout the middle east. Hezbollah will be getting a raise, much to the dismay of the majority of Lebanese and the Syrians who are being crushed under their boot. The same can be said of Pres. Assad whose barrel and chlorine bombs which the Iranians are financing will get bigger and more deadly. Yemen's war will get nastier, now that the Iranians feel that they have a free hand there.
It the Iranians abide by the agreement (possible, but doubtful), it will be a good thing for us, but the middle east will see Iranian backed violence and oppression much harsher than in recent days.
With more money, Iran will double down on their colonial expansion throughout the middle east. Hezbollah will be getting a raise, much to the dismay of the majority of Lebanese and the Syrians who are being crushed under their boot. The same can be said of Pres. Assad whose barrel and chlorine bombs which the Iranians are financing will get bigger and more deadly. Yemen's war will get nastier, now that the Iranians feel that they have a free hand there.
It the Iranians abide by the agreement (possible, but doubtful), it will be a good thing for us, but the middle east will see Iranian backed violence and oppression much harsher than in recent days.
1
the critics of this deal are stuck in the 1950s when the US was the overwhelmingly dominant economic and military power in the world. even then, Eisenhower did nothing to overturn the soviet union's crushing of the Hungarian and polish rebellions in 1956. if we kill this deal the sanctions regime will fall apart. china and india don't care about our differences with iran. they want Iranian oil and access to its economy. as far as our "friends" in the middle east, they should remember the saying-nations don't have friends, they only have interests
5
This piece, along with the game changing interview documented by Tom Friedman, adopts the refreshingly rational, wide-eyed, and forward looking approach emblematic of the Obama presidency. My hope is that the naysayers, by contrast, will be seen as what they tend to be: trigger-happy fear stokers screaming, literally, "we'll all be killed!"
Here is our chance, America, to move toward a future where bombs and blood and tears and death are not the only solution to pockets of Islamic State lunacy frothing for just such an outcome.
Here is our chance, America, to move toward a future where bombs and blood and tears and death are not the only solution to pockets of Islamic State lunacy frothing for just such an outcome.
4
'My hope is that the naysayers, by contrast, will be seen as what they tend to be: trigger-happy fear stokers screaming, literally, "we'll all be killed!"'
You're quite right. In this instance, Mr. Obama's opponents really look like they are coming to a global Go tournament with nothing more than a Checkers mindset.
You're quite right. In this instance, Mr. Obama's opponents really look like they are coming to a global Go tournament with nothing more than a Checkers mindset.
1
As the NY Times Editorial Board took a courageous initiative in support of opening relations with Cuba, here too the columns by Mr. Cohen and specially the extensive and thorough interview of President Obama by Thomas Friedman play a constructive role in informing and educating public opinion.
The situation with Iran is much more complex, but also has much more significant consequence, as clearly articulated by President Obama.
This is the function of an un-cuffed, unpartisan press — the elusive 'fourth estate. To both, Cohen and Friedman, thank you for separating the seed from the chaff.
The situation with Iran is much more complex, but also has much more significant consequence, as clearly articulated by President Obama.
This is the function of an un-cuffed, unpartisan press — the elusive 'fourth estate. To both, Cohen and Friedman, thank you for separating the seed from the chaff.
6
Much ado about nothing. Despite repeated news screams and headlines, there is no "deal". Not a single signed sheet of paper with any firm commitment to anything. At best Kerry got a delay in the already overlong negotiation process. Let's wait and see if anything occurs by the end of June toward producing a single written sheet of agreed procedures with both sides signing it.
In the meantime the Iranian nuclear spinning goes on as does the Western media and politicians celebration of what in effect are promises of something better to come from a previously disreputable partner.
In the meantime the Iranian nuclear spinning goes on as does the Western media and politicians celebration of what in effect are promises of something better to come from a previously disreputable partner.
5
"Not a single signed sheet of paper with any firm commitment to anything."
Fair enough, but this is further than we have got over the last 36 years, though.
Fair enough, but this is further than we have got over the last 36 years, though.
This initiative tests the belief that Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon accelerated after they witnessed the Iraqi Army collapse in short order after the American invasion of 2003. From an Iranian perspective two neighboring states, Iraq and Afghanistan, were occupied, and nuclear weapons were sought as a deterrent.
If those who claim that Iran's actions are explained by insecurity in the face of Western power this agreement will start a new chapter. If Iran is simply a revolutionary state seeking regional hegemony it will evidenced by cheating on this agreement and the continued expansion of the IRGC-Quds Force activities in the region. President Obama is correct that we have sufficient power to take corrective action if this effort fails. In fact the U.S. power differential with Iran is far greater than it was with China in 1970 or the USSR during successful arms control agreements.
Few commentators have mentioned the cultural affinities that remain with Iran from close alliance prior to the Islamic Revolution. Their chief nuclear negotiator was educated at MIT, the head of their judiciary went to UC Berkeley, and jeans are popular apparel in Tehran. We also helped them recover from an earthquake some years back. There could be popular support for true rapprochement if trust building measures gain traction. If not, there are other options.
Good job Roger Cohen!
If those who claim that Iran's actions are explained by insecurity in the face of Western power this agreement will start a new chapter. If Iran is simply a revolutionary state seeking regional hegemony it will evidenced by cheating on this agreement and the continued expansion of the IRGC-Quds Force activities in the region. President Obama is correct that we have sufficient power to take corrective action if this effort fails. In fact the U.S. power differential with Iran is far greater than it was with China in 1970 or the USSR during successful arms control agreements.
Few commentators have mentioned the cultural affinities that remain with Iran from close alliance prior to the Islamic Revolution. Their chief nuclear negotiator was educated at MIT, the head of their judiciary went to UC Berkeley, and jeans are popular apparel in Tehran. We also helped them recover from an earthquake some years back. There could be popular support for true rapprochement if trust building measures gain traction. If not, there are other options.
Good job Roger Cohen!
5
Mr. Cohen, yours are the first contributions to which I regularly turn. Conservative neocons have little to counter this deal to our country or the world save more economic sanctions or possible war. Sanctions will prove less effective next round should America turn down the final form of this nuclear deal this summer. Less far, China and Russia are salivating at the prospects of heightened trade with Iran, with or without the deal.
More optimistically, once Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina Republican primaries are out of the way this spring, one or two presidential candidates will conclude conditional approval of the deal.
Thanks for a great column.
More optimistically, once Iowa, New Hampshire and S. Carolina Republican primaries are out of the way this spring, one or two presidential candidates will conclude conditional approval of the deal.
Thanks for a great column.
3
The neocon Chicken Hawk Party in the US and the Likud Eternal War Party in Israel will do everything they can to heighten hostilities between the US and Iran. The big donors to these groups will pour millions of dollars into the war chests of the warmongers. The far right lusts for war and despises peace. President Obama has made a significant breakthrough toward peace with his Iran deal. Expect his enemies and haters to do all they can to undermine this deal, just like they have tried to destroy the Affordable Care Act through deception and lies. There is money to be made if we go to war with Iran, big money.
7
Both President’s Obama and Rouhani have taken the necessary risks to bring Iran and its people back into the international community where they stood the ousting of the American backed Shah.
Obama has been besieged with brick bats and ridicule from the Republicans and Netanyahu who sees no future for peace, yet comments section in international papers showed how delighted the people were with an agreement.
President Obama follows the precedent set by Richard Nixon with China and Margaret Thatcher who built up a warm relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s.
The Iranians don't want war, they can't afford war, but they need the sanctions lifted as vital pharmaceutical supplies are causing needless misery.
At the end of the day, Iran is a sovereign state and accordingly needs to protect itself from other countries in the region who are determined to undermine its stability and turn it into another Iraq, Syria or Yemen.
Obama has been besieged with brick bats and ridicule from the Republicans and Netanyahu who sees no future for peace, yet comments section in international papers showed how delighted the people were with an agreement.
President Obama follows the precedent set by Richard Nixon with China and Margaret Thatcher who built up a warm relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s.
The Iranians don't want war, they can't afford war, but they need the sanctions lifted as vital pharmaceutical supplies are causing needless misery.
At the end of the day, Iran is a sovereign state and accordingly needs to protect itself from other countries in the region who are determined to undermine its stability and turn it into another Iraq, Syria or Yemen.
4
While some focus on the bilateral history of hostile relations between America and Iran is understandable particularly in light of 60+ years of American covert and overt regime change war directed at Iran the American perspective is warped. American hostility predates any Iranian nuclear program and any Iranian national defense security foreign policy activity.
America was allied with Iran after an American and British coup at the behest of BP overthrew a democratic Iranian government and installed the Shah of Iran in power. Since the fall of the Shah America renewed it's war against Iran. With the exception of rhetoric, supplying arms and training and supporting fighting surrogates in the region, Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. The war has been pretty much one -sided from America.
And the proposed deal still leaves Israel as the sole regional ethnic sectarian supremacist violent terrorist state with nuclear weapons. By entering into these negotiations Iran is taking far more risks from attacks by hardliners complaining about appeasement and exposing it's people to even more violence and terrorism than America.
Moreover, although the deal is multi-lateral among the P 5+1, with 40% of the world's 15 million Jews, only America has domestic political concerns. But 98% of Americans are not Jews. Yet Jewish influence in American socioeconomic political media educational is much higher than demography. There is no Iranian Lobby.
America was allied with Iran after an American and British coup at the behest of BP overthrew a democratic Iranian government and installed the Shah of Iran in power. Since the fall of the Shah America renewed it's war against Iran. With the exception of rhetoric, supplying arms and training and supporting fighting surrogates in the region, Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. The war has been pretty much one -sided from America.
And the proposed deal still leaves Israel as the sole regional ethnic sectarian supremacist violent terrorist state with nuclear weapons. By entering into these negotiations Iran is taking far more risks from attacks by hardliners complaining about appeasement and exposing it's people to even more violence and terrorism than America.
Moreover, although the deal is multi-lateral among the P 5+1, with 40% of the world's 15 million Jews, only America has domestic political concerns. But 98% of Americans are not Jews. Yet Jewish influence in American socioeconomic political media educational is much higher than demography. There is no Iranian Lobby.
5
Do the "bad dealers" really believe that the American people are ready and willing to have a shock and awe encounter with Iran? I thought that after Vietnam we would never make the same mistake again --- wrong. Once again, after Iraq and after Afghanistan and after Syria, I could go on, but hope, that this time, we stop believing that our military has the answer to cultural complexities of regions where any military intervention will always makes matters worse.
9
Many members of Congress,including too many of my fellow Democrats fail
to see,from their own examples, that when one or all sides demand their version(s) of perfect diplomatic agreements, the result is same from that
approach by Congress.No agreement.This is a workable,enforceable agreement because all sides were willing to go into overtime to make it
so.At least until there's hopefully a final such agreement,Congress should back off and let the diplomats finish their work unimpeded.
to see,from their own examples, that when one or all sides demand their version(s) of perfect diplomatic agreements, the result is same from that
approach by Congress.No agreement.This is a workable,enforceable agreement because all sides were willing to go into overtime to make it
so.At least until there's hopefully a final such agreement,Congress should back off and let the diplomats finish their work unimpeded.
9
Exactly right. A diplomatic solution is the way to go, the famous "trust but verify" still in good standing. It is ironic we still have so many contrarians demanding war (bomb Iran), not knowing personally the horrors of it. Netanyahu is locked in a position of rigidity and intransigence, seeking to divide the U.S.'s aim to defuse the nuclear issue, and not recognize that 'the best is the enemy of the good', and an impediment to seal the deal.
6
While I agree with mr. Cohen's appraisal of the deal with Iran there is one simple fact that never seems to get mentioned in these debates. Iran is a signatory to the IAEA treaty and as such has a right under international law to pursue uranium enrichment and nuclear power.
Unfortunately those of us in the US are so used to having other nations follow our dictates that we forget that even as a super power the US is not the sovereign of the world. There is an international order that is not completely controlled by the US and treaties and international agreements are far preferable to the rule of might makes right.
But the critics say, how can you trust a regime that is as oppressive as Iran's theocracy? We should remember that the US orchestrated a coup against a democratic government in Iran in 1953. This wasn't done because of fear of an Islamic state or greater Iranian influence in the region. It was done because Iran had the nerve to nationalize their oil industry and thereby cut off US corporate influence and control. This couldn't be tolerated, by them or other third world emerging countries, whether democratic or not. Today's agreement on nuclear power still lies in the shadow of this sordid history. Hopefully this agreement moves both countires in a new direction.
Unfortunately those of us in the US are so used to having other nations follow our dictates that we forget that even as a super power the US is not the sovereign of the world. There is an international order that is not completely controlled by the US and treaties and international agreements are far preferable to the rule of might makes right.
But the critics say, how can you trust a regime that is as oppressive as Iran's theocracy? We should remember that the US orchestrated a coup against a democratic government in Iran in 1953. This wasn't done because of fear of an Islamic state or greater Iranian influence in the region. It was done because Iran had the nerve to nationalize their oil industry and thereby cut off US corporate influence and control. This couldn't be tolerated, by them or other third world emerging countries, whether democratic or not. Today's agreement on nuclear power still lies in the shadow of this sordid history. Hopefully this agreement moves both countires in a new direction.
11
@ Victor - "It was done because Iran had the nerve to nationalize their oil industry and thereby..."
Steal all of the equipment, know-how, work performed etc from United States and other nation's corporations that had legitimate and legal rights and treaties to work within Iran in the oil industry.
How would you feel if the United States "nationalized" your house, car and financial assets?
Steal all of the equipment, know-how, work performed etc from United States and other nation's corporations that had legitimate and legal rights and treaties to work within Iran in the oil industry.
How would you feel if the United States "nationalized" your house, car and financial assets?
Mexico nationalized U.S. property in that country in the 30s and 40s. We managed to maintain diplomatic relations with our neighbor. No sane, sovereign country allows foreign enterprises to walk away with a nation's resources for a pittance, just because treaties and contracts were conducted with corrupt, self-serving officials.
1
@ Dona Maria - You failed to mention that President Roosevelt supported the oil companies' interests and they were more than
fully compensated by the Mexican government as a result.
Nothing like cherry picking your examples - fail!
fully compensated by the Mexican government as a result.
Nothing like cherry picking your examples - fail!
1
I completely agree with you, Luke W. It is heartening to see Mr. Cohen is aboard for the likely bumpy road to the finalizing of this tentative agreement. Based on what I have heard thus far from many Republicans, we are going to need his assistance.
2
Diplomacy necessarily involves recognition of other countries' interests and a willingness to compromise. The nuclear deal is not perfect. It is, however, quite good. And it very well may lead to stronger and more positive U.S.-Iran ties. that is a benefit we should not overlook.
7
I understand the argument that the West can promote a positive evolution in the Iranian political system through this deal. But as even Cohen acknowledges, the government of Iran does not really want to evolve--it just wants to take the international pressure off itself.
Nuclear deal or no deal, Iran remains an authoritarian, theocratic regime that violently suppresses the democratic aspirations of all its citizens, and in particular persecutes women and religious and sexual minorities.
Of course the US and other western democracies are flawed, and we should all discuss how they can evolve. The Iranian political system, in contrast, needs to be fundamentally transformed. Meanwhile, Western governments should think carefully before doing anything to support such a regime.
Nuclear deal or no deal, Iran remains an authoritarian, theocratic regime that violently suppresses the democratic aspirations of all its citizens, and in particular persecutes women and religious and sexual minorities.
Of course the US and other western democracies are flawed, and we should all discuss how they can evolve. The Iranian political system, in contrast, needs to be fundamentally transformed. Meanwhile, Western governments should think carefully before doing anything to support such a regime.
19
Grouch,
I did a little rewriting here:
"Nuclear deal or no deal, Saudi Arabia remains an authoritarian, theocratic regime that violently suppresses the democratic aspirations of all its citizens, and in particular persecutes women and religious and sexual minorities.
Of course the US and other western democracies are flawed, and we should all discuss how they can evolve. The Saudi Arabian political system, in contrast, needs to be fundamentally transformed. Meanwhile, Western governments should think carefully before doing anything to support such a regime."
If we can be friends with Saudi Arabia, we can be friends with Iran.
I did a little rewriting here:
"Nuclear deal or no deal, Saudi Arabia remains an authoritarian, theocratic regime that violently suppresses the democratic aspirations of all its citizens, and in particular persecutes women and religious and sexual minorities.
Of course the US and other western democracies are flawed, and we should all discuss how they can evolve. The Saudi Arabian political system, in contrast, needs to be fundamentally transformed. Meanwhile, Western governments should think carefully before doing anything to support such a regime."
If we can be friends with Saudi Arabia, we can be friends with Iran.
3
Your version of Iranian society is a sad cartoon. Iranian elections are real, and voting exceeds that in the United States by a considerable margin. The idea that Iran is persecuting women and sexual minorities is belied by the enormous progress women have made in Iran. They now constitute the majority of university students even in engineering and medicine. With renewed diplomatic relations Americans burdened with these inaccurate pictures of Iranian society may wish to travel to Iran to see the truth for themselves. In fact, Americans can go now, but many mistakenly think they can't.
2
"...Iran remains an authoritarian, theocratic regime that violently suppresses the democratic aspirations of all its citizens, and in particular persecutes women and religious and sexual minorities. "
@Grouch
You've just described our good pal Saudi Arabia. the swell folks who provided the means for the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 by 15 Saudi citizens of the 19 monsters that attacked us that day. We know it, yet we still call them our buddies, still sell them arms. Iran doesn't look like a worse bet to me.
@Grouch
You've just described our good pal Saudi Arabia. the swell folks who provided the means for the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 by 15 Saudi citizens of the 19 monsters that attacked us that day. We know it, yet we still call them our buddies, still sell them arms. Iran doesn't look like a worse bet to me.
3
"Institutionalized discord is far better than traumatized alienation." I agree. The gest I got from Thomas Freidman's interview with President Barack Obama is that it is better to build bridges than walls. Both Presidents have critics who are wall builders and not bridge constructers. The wall along the United States- Mexico border verifies Republican preferred foreign policy. That said, I am still troubled by the lifting of sanctions. Also, the re-implementation of sanctions, if that proves necessary. Because this is a multi-national agreement and the European economy is still hurting from the Great Recession, I fear sanctions will be lifted too quickly and cannot be re-instituted easily and effectively. Such fears should not impede the way forward. A long journey begins with a first step. This agreement is a good first step. Lets continue to hope that all the involved diplomats and leaders work with open minds and helping hands and not with walled-up minds and clenched fists. There is too much animosity in our world. Lets give peace a chance.
1
This is a very nice opinion piece by Roger Cohen. Considering that two-thirds of Iranians have been born since the 1979 revolution and likely have more cosmopolitan views than the older Republican Guard types perhaps there is some recognition in Iran that they must begin to politically evolve.
Whether the tentative agreement fully works remains to be seen. As Cohen says it is not perfect but no agreement in such circumstances would ever be perfect. That it will face undermining by the Saudi’s, sabotage by the GOP and resistance by Israel is probably a given. But if it can survive these tests then Roger Cohen is right it may over the next generation recast not only America’s relations with Iran but also the world’s.
Israel’s security concerns are real and concrete and understandable. The GOP’s objections though seem a bit different. They are more cynical, less interested in Israel’s legitimate concerns than using Israel as a device to batter domestic political opponents.
Whether the tentative agreement fully works remains to be seen. As Cohen says it is not perfect but no agreement in such circumstances would ever be perfect. That it will face undermining by the Saudi’s, sabotage by the GOP and resistance by Israel is probably a given. But if it can survive these tests then Roger Cohen is right it may over the next generation recast not only America’s relations with Iran but also the world’s.
Israel’s security concerns are real and concrete and understandable. The GOP’s objections though seem a bit different. They are more cynical, less interested in Israel’s legitimate concerns than using Israel as a device to batter domestic political opponents.
182
America had diplomatic relations and engagement with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. America has had diplomatic relations and engagement with Russia ever since the end of the Cold War. Both the Soviet Union and Russia were and are existential nuclear threats to America. The Soviet pledge to "bury America" was real.
America has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has been a nuclear armed existential overt and covert war threat to Iran for over 60+ years. Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. Iran has never attacked the Israeli homeland despite it's rhetoric.
Israel's security concerns regarding Iran are illegitimate, inhumane, feigned, imagined and beyond comprehension on the basis presented. Israel wants to be the only ethnic sectarian supremacist unfettered imperial nuclear armed military political hegemon in the region. Opposition to that Zionist Jewish goal is widespread, normal, natural, earned and deserved.
With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, no Arab nor majority Muslim nation state recognizes nor has diplomatic relations with Israel. No nation on Earth recognizes Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. None of these states recognize Israel's right to exist as a Zionist Jewish state. But they do accept a civil secular plural egalitarian democratic Israeli state next to a similar Palestine state.
There is no Iran Lobby to counterbalance the Israel Lobby.
America has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has been a nuclear armed existential overt and covert war threat to Iran for over 60+ years. Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack the American homeland. Iran has never attacked the Israeli homeland despite it's rhetoric.
Israel's security concerns regarding Iran are illegitimate, inhumane, feigned, imagined and beyond comprehension on the basis presented. Israel wants to be the only ethnic sectarian supremacist unfettered imperial nuclear armed military political hegemon in the region. Opposition to that Zionist Jewish goal is widespread, normal, natural, earned and deserved.
With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, no Arab nor majority Muslim nation state recognizes nor has diplomatic relations with Israel. No nation on Earth recognizes Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. None of these states recognize Israel's right to exist as a Zionist Jewish state. But they do accept a civil secular plural egalitarian democratic Israeli state next to a similar Palestine state.
There is no Iran Lobby to counterbalance the Israel Lobby.
Let's put a finer point on it: the GOP's attempt to deny President Obama a major foreign policy (or any other) achievement drives its agenda. And that's its top priority, placed well above the actual security interests of the US, Israel and our negotiating partners. The GOP's position appears to be that chest thumping over Israel's security trumps its actual security and that war is always favorable to closely monitored engagement.
1
Blackmamba--at least the Soviets didn't seize the American embassy in Moscow and hold the staff hostage for months on end. Iranians ran wild in the streets of Tehran in those revolutionary days yelling Death to America and that attitude hasn't changed a bit. The slightest infractions of Iran's draconian religious laws are met with severe punishment like hangings and stonings. Today the embassy remains as a museum of Iran's triumph against the Great Satan. What part of "Perish Judea" don't we understand. Of course there's an Iran lobby--ever hear of the Kardashians???
1
"Iran’s other presidential reformist, Mohammad Khatami, who spoke a good line but could not deliver."
Let's remember, please, that Khatami was one of the first, after 9/11, to offer condolences and to offer assistance. There were also nuclear negotiations going on, Rouhani was the chief Iranian negotiatior then, when Iran only had about 300 centrifuges and a deal was offered by them then. What was the US response? The Axis of Evil and rejection of the offer.
You are correct that countries need to have partners if there are to be agreements between or among them. Khatami tried outreach, which would have had to have been approved, even if tentatively, by the Supreme Leader, and this attempt at better relations was coldly and repeatedly rebuffed by the then-Administration with some very harsh name-calling. Is it any wonder that the Iranian leadership at that time concluded that there was no point dealing with the US?
To blame Khatami or the Iranian leadership for the failures during his presidency is to forget our own part in not offering him a working partner.
Let's remember, please, that Khatami was one of the first, after 9/11, to offer condolences and to offer assistance. There were also nuclear negotiations going on, Rouhani was the chief Iranian negotiatior then, when Iran only had about 300 centrifuges and a deal was offered by them then. What was the US response? The Axis of Evil and rejection of the offer.
You are correct that countries need to have partners if there are to be agreements between or among them. Khatami tried outreach, which would have had to have been approved, even if tentatively, by the Supreme Leader, and this attempt at better relations was coldly and repeatedly rebuffed by the then-Administration with some very harsh name-calling. Is it any wonder that the Iranian leadership at that time concluded that there was no point dealing with the US?
To blame Khatami or the Iranian leadership for the failures during his presidency is to forget our own part in not offering him a working partner.
27
Peace in our time, hmmm?
5
Sounds like you really think Iran is going to start a blitzkrieg against the US and its allies, or you wouldn't have made that particular comment. Or were you just trying to bring in something that happened, oh, let's see, over 75 years ago, concerning a truly dangerous world power, in order to make a cutesy remark, hmmm?
As the saying goes, those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
Here the lesson being ignored is, never assume everything will be hunky-dory when you deal with the enemy.
Iran was not asked to reduce their nuclear capability, they were told if they like their program they can keep it. There is no mechanism in place to verify they are not developing nuclear weapons.
As far as the Hitler analogy goes, Iran may not attack us but they did swear to destroy Israel.
You've heard of Israel, haven't you?
Here the lesson being ignored is, never assume everything will be hunky-dory when you deal with the enemy.
Iran was not asked to reduce their nuclear capability, they were told if they like their program they can keep it. There is no mechanism in place to verify they are not developing nuclear weapons.
As far as the Hitler analogy goes, Iran may not attack us but they did swear to destroy Israel.
You've heard of Israel, haven't you?
Well done, Roger! Now, if only someone could make the Republicans in Congress read this sensible column . . .
39
"It is not a bad thing to remind allies that enjoying irrevocable support from the United States cannot mean exercising a veto on American actions."
Well said. Tell this to Bibi and his hard line compatriots in Israel. I hope they recognize this simple reality. America is in charge of her foreign policy. It is time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
Well said. Tell this to Bibi and his hard line compatriots in Israel. I hope they recognize this simple reality. America is in charge of her foreign policy. It is time for the tail to stop wagging the dog.
105
Perhaps Mr. Cohen might want to mention that there seem to be two version of the framework agreement, the US version and the Iranian one. In spite of Mr. Cohen's upbeat message, I wonder if it is all warranted bearing in mind the unanswered questions and the conflicting versions. The Iranians are dancing in the street because in their version all sanctions will be removed with the signing of the "final" agreement in June (should it be signed).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/outline-of-iran-nucle...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-and-iran-publicly-at-odds-over-6-key-asp...
As this agreement pertains only to matters nuclear, nobody pays any attention to what has been published in Israel that the Iranians have pored tens of millions of dollars, and the sanctions and their wobbly economy in place, into rebuilding the tunnels in Gaza. While the Iranians smile at the US, they enable the next round with Hamas. Allow me then not to smile back at the Iranians and their pro-Western youth.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-sent-hamas-tens-of-millions-to-rebuild...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/outline-of-iran-nucle...
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-and-iran-publicly-at-odds-over-6-key-asp...
As this agreement pertains only to matters nuclear, nobody pays any attention to what has been published in Israel that the Iranians have pored tens of millions of dollars, and the sanctions and their wobbly economy in place, into rebuilding the tunnels in Gaza. While the Iranians smile at the US, they enable the next round with Hamas. Allow me then not to smile back at the Iranians and their pro-Western youth.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-sent-hamas-tens-of-millions-to-rebuild...
59
Wag the dog failed. Bibi alienated Americans from Israel by allying with the party of stupid and using our Congress as a campaign stop. The Republicans behaved like North Korean politburo clapping for their lives only to discover that Adelson wanted more.
We are not surprised that hardliners in Israel have a point of view different from China, Russia, France, England and Germany. Soon it will find that the General assembly also has a different view. The rational Israelis will soon replace the bully and restore Israelis integrity.
Excellent piece again Mr Cohen.
We are not surprised that hardliners in Israel have a point of view different from China, Russia, France, England and Germany. Soon it will find that the General assembly also has a different view. The rational Israelis will soon replace the bully and restore Israelis integrity.
Excellent piece again Mr Cohen.
2
Well, our choice is to have a Hamas-supporting Iran with, or without, nuclear weapons. Which do you prefer?
1
Iran does not provide the bulk of aid to Hamas. The bulk comes from the Gulf States. Moreover the renewed military rule in Egypt does not favor Iran and curtails its activities. The idea that Hamas is a creature of Iran is completely inaccurate, as any history of the Hamas movement quickly will reveal.
5
I fail to see the logic of those calling this a "bad" deal. What kind of deal did they think they would get that could be better? The complete humbling and disarmament of a sovereign nation? This is "a" deal which is far superior to "no" deal as not only do we have oversight of any nuclear ambitions and development, but even more importantly we are openly engaged with this country for the first time in decades. This is the path to changing hearts and minds--not sanctions and certainly not bombings. Israel's fears are irrelevant and actually unnecessary-both the US and Israel have far superior military might, can Israel only feel strong and secure if all it's neighbors are weak? The only uncomfortable area is Saudi Arabia's reaction as it feels this diminishes it's power in the region somewhat, plus increasing the area oil supply which is already dropped in price.
65
Mary,
Let me see if I can explain. It is a bad deal in that it leaves all of the infrastructure in place to make a nuclear weapon. The fact that this may be the best that could be achieved does not change the fact that the best that could be achieved is still woefully short of what needed to be achieved.
As for Israel's fears? It fears a country that even now calls for its annihilation being left with the capability to develop a weapon of mass destruction. I feel to see the logic of those who do not see this as something to be deathly afraid of.
Let me see if I can explain. It is a bad deal in that it leaves all of the infrastructure in place to make a nuclear weapon. The fact that this may be the best that could be achieved does not change the fact that the best that could be achieved is still woefully short of what needed to be achieved.
As for Israel's fears? It fears a country that even now calls for its annihilation being left with the capability to develop a weapon of mass destruction. I feel to see the logic of those who do not see this as something to be deathly afraid of.
We only can go so far in dictating the infrastructure of a sovereign nation. Israel has far more nukes than Iran can possibly come up with anytime soon. There's more rhetoric that bite to Iran's threats against Israel...Israel needs to get over itself and make some concessions to the people it displaced by its creation.
Hear Hear! Thanks to President Obama, Secretary Kerry and all American and international players who have brought us this far towards a more peaceful world as the vast majority of people in the world want. Now it's up to US to make sure OUR elected officials support the world WE want - not the top 1% global financial elite who make their money off chaos and war.
164
I like the outlook expressed in this column, and I take it that behind the analysis there is much understanding of how Iranians and their leaders are likely to be thinking, but it seems to me that we still don't know how relief from (many) economic sanctions will affect future behavior. We infer a narrative from past and present data points and then extrapolate; our inferences may be inaccurate and/or the future may veer from the slope established from past data points, even if we are describing it accurately. So maybe we rest with the idea that at this point in time, this sort of agreement seems to be the best option available.
22
Because Pakistan has nuclear bomb, there has been no war since 1971 . India has democracy but it does not treat it's neighbors like Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh or Pakistan even China nicely. If India can have it, Pakistan can have it.
4
This deal is a good example of what works in diplomacy and how wars can be avoided. Seeing the state of the middle east after the war in Irak makes both Iran and the US reflect on escalations in rethoric and the consequences of wars. This should also make the Israeli right think through its head in the sand attitude. Their neighborhood is in such a mess that they need to adopt a conciliatory attitude with the few states that are still cohesive. Iran, it seems, is one of them. Who would have expected that?
84
Remember that although Iran is by no means an ideal state it does have real elections, unlike most of America's Arab allies.
39
Real elections? Who elected the Ayatollah?
2
Hundreds of Iranians who wished to run in the last elections
were rejected by the government. These are not real elections. There is only one country in the Middle East
which has elections as democratic, or more so as in America
and that is Israel.
were rejected by the government. These are not real elections. There is only one country in the Middle East
which has elections as democratic, or more so as in America
and that is Israel.
3
While in Israel, whom you all hate, the third largest elected party is the Arab conglomerate. Israel's 20% Arab population gets to vote and be represented in the government. If they could sully themselves by joining a coalition with Jewish parties, they could even be kingmakers. Oh, and gay rights and women's rights are all protected in Israel.
and to those who say the Palestinians in the territories aren's allowed to vote, they're not citizens of Israel. If Israel annexed the territories, then that argument would be valid. Until the disposition of the territories is finalized, they have as much right to vote in Israel as they do in Egypt or Jordan. For those of you who judge Israel's voting policies as deficient compared with our own, remember that US citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands are not allowed to vote in US Presidential elections.
and to those who say the Palestinians in the territories aren's allowed to vote, they're not citizens of Israel. If Israel annexed the territories, then that argument would be valid. Until the disposition of the territories is finalized, they have as much right to vote in Israel as they do in Egypt or Jordan. For those of you who judge Israel's voting policies as deficient compared with our own, remember that US citizens of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands are not allowed to vote in US Presidential elections.
2
"The ice has broken" if President Obama can get this through leaders in Congress wanting to launch a war against Iran. These mostly republican leaders like McCain, Graham, Bolton, Wolfowicz, Cheney etc. want nothing more than to engage in a coalition with Prime Minister Netanyahu to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
President Obama deserves high praise for steadfastly pursuing this accord with Iran but I hope he is able to convince all democrats and some reasonable republicans of the fact that this is the best policy option for the United States.
President Obama deserves high praise for steadfastly pursuing this accord with Iran but I hope he is able to convince all democrats and some reasonable republicans of the fact that this is the best policy option for the United States.
115
"These mostly republican leaders like McCain, Graham, Bolton, Wolfowicz, Cheney etc. want nothing more than to engage in a coalition with Prime Minister Netanyahu to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities."
I suggest that they want nothing more than to rally the voters in support of their ideology come the the next US election.
I suggest that they want nothing more than to rally the voters in support of their ideology come the the next US election.
2
This is perhaps the most important call to citizen activists in our lifetime. To allow those who oppose this step forward the opportunity would be a mistake of the highest order. Every citizen who sees this as a watershed agreement must work the phones and email and social media and every opportunity for one on one lobbying. We must let our leaders and our citizen neighbors know the importance of rallying behind this important move toward real peace.
53
It's about time.
The US has spent 62 years terrorizing Iran.
Deposing an elected government.
Installing and backing a dictator.
Arming a different dictator, Saddam Hussein to fight Iran.
Giving Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Shooting down Iran Air 655, killing 290 Iranian civilians, 66 of them children.
Cyber nuking Iran, with unknowable potential environmental consequences.
Trying to starve Iran with sanctions.
Trying diplomacy, after 62 years of abject failure, could not possibly be worse.
The US has spent 62 years terrorizing Iran.
Deposing an elected government.
Installing and backing a dictator.
Arming a different dictator, Saddam Hussein to fight Iran.
Giving Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve his use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
Shooting down Iran Air 655, killing 290 Iranian civilians, 66 of them children.
Cyber nuking Iran, with unknowable potential environmental consequences.
Trying to starve Iran with sanctions.
Trying diplomacy, after 62 years of abject failure, could not possibly be worse.
198
CRAIG,every thing you wrote is correct, l am a 80 years old man from middle east and came over to USA when l was 24, l personally saw most of the thing you wrote, l was in Turkish Army for 3 years, than PM, Menderes whom freely elected put in jail and than hung, and all those similler things was happining allover in middle east and we just looked to the other way, now our president who is a black man and his middle name make right wings and GOP turn blue, is making diplomacy works and wars can be avoided, l am not a republican or democrat, but l am an American, so l say thank Mr,President Obama and l am telling to my country skin color or religion does not make you a good or a bad person
17
I totally agree. My replacement as commander of ROTC detachment was one of the hostages detained in Iraq. Actually our interference in Iran goes back further than 62 years as we supported the British takeover of the Iranian oil fields during WW II.
5
Thank you President Obama and President Rouhani, and thank you Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif, for working to bring peace, and not more war, to our lives. I know the Nobel committee are watching this closely. I can't imagine such progress with the likes of today's Republican party, or even Iran's former president Ahmadinejad. This just goes to show that voting matters, where ever one has the opportunity to cast their ballot.
83
Reasonably good essay from Mr. Cohen.
On the other hand, the complete silence from all media in the west on the stockpile of several hundred nuclear weapons in Israel's arsenal, not to mention the thousands of such in the USA arsenal, never ceases to amaze me.
Israel's nuclear weaponry is officially denied by the Israeli government and there is no international oversight of that weaponry whatsoever.
The USA of course is the only country to have intentionally destroyed two Japanese civilian populations and their environment for what in essence was an "experiment" toward the end of WWII and has nuclear weapons poised for launch at a moment's notice.
Iran has yet to produce a nuclear device, has stated repeatedly that it has no intention to do so and otherwise is free as a sovereign country to do whatever it wishes for its defense.
All this in view of past actions - including overthrow of an earlier Iranian government by the USA and the UK - and regular belligerence from the USA, Israel and the egregiously undemocratic kingship of Saudi Arabia, non-Arab, Pakistan and India, countries with long-possessed nuclear weaponry, in Iran's vicinity.
On the other hand, the complete silence from all media in the west on the stockpile of several hundred nuclear weapons in Israel's arsenal, not to mention the thousands of such in the USA arsenal, never ceases to amaze me.
Israel's nuclear weaponry is officially denied by the Israeli government and there is no international oversight of that weaponry whatsoever.
The USA of course is the only country to have intentionally destroyed two Japanese civilian populations and their environment for what in essence was an "experiment" toward the end of WWII and has nuclear weapons poised for launch at a moment's notice.
Iran has yet to produce a nuclear device, has stated repeatedly that it has no intention to do so and otherwise is free as a sovereign country to do whatever it wishes for its defense.
All this in view of past actions - including overthrow of an earlier Iranian government by the USA and the UK - and regular belligerence from the USA, Israel and the egregiously undemocratic kingship of Saudi Arabia, non-Arab, Pakistan and India, countries with long-possessed nuclear weaponry, in Iran's vicinity.
59
Why did this comment not make it into the NYT picks? It represents views and history that ought to be worth pointing out to your readers, doesn't it? And it alone highlights Israel's vast arsenal of nuclear weapons - in secret still.
1
I dont want either of my grandsons to go to war for Netanyahu!
277
Nor do I! I also don't want my daughter and four grandsons going to war with any nation, um, unless said nation actually invades our territories.
9
Nor do I. Vietnam was my stupid war for 12 months, and my son served 27 months in Iraq as an Army captain. My family has come full circle, as my grandfather was part of Kitchener's expeditionary force that liberated Khartoum in 1898 from Islamic extremists.
The U.S. should stay out of civil wars and religious wars, and promote secular interests.
The U.S. should stay out of civil wars and religious wars, and promote secular interests.
8
Thank you, Roger Cohen, for your rare balance and understanding of Iran's perspective. With respect to ranian President Rouhani not specifically excluding Israel from his efforts at outreach, let's remember that Ayatollah Khamenei has said that Iran would accept any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians that was approved by a Palestinian majority. In other words, it is really Israel that holds the key to reducing tensions with Iran if it would begin serious negotiations on a fair two-state solution.
96
"It is not a bad thing to remind allies that enjoying irrevocable support from the United States cannot mean exercising a veto on American actions."
That must be shocking news to the Republicans and AIPAC.
That must be shocking news to the Republicans and AIPAC.
212
Half the United States is Republican. Israel's perspective, as the one pro-Western ally we have always had in the turbulent and dangerous Middle East, is certainly relevant as they will face the repercussions of this deal every day. Why do you, and most others here, sound as if anyone who questions this deal is irrational, extremist, and treasonous?
5
"Why do you, and most others here, sound as if anyone who questions this deal is irrational, extremist, and treasonous?"
Maybe because none have proposed an alternative that is both different and coherent.
Maybe because none have proposed an alternative that is both different and coherent.
10
Thank you for your excellent column. The saddest thing about this to me is that the hard liners in this country who are against this agreement are getting huge sums of money from Sheldon Adelson and other Israeli hard line backers. Their idea that we impose harsher sanctions or attack Iran's nuclear facilities as Bibi wants will end in disaster. But money to congressman is more important than a good shot at peace. Feels a lot like treason to me.
242
The concept being pushed by the Senate hardliners of imposing more severe sanctions is really stupid. Without international support (Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia) imposing meaningful sanctions is not possible. The opposition to the negotiated agreement is irrational.
22
This is not Rocket Science. As long as Iran is firmly under the thumb of its Islamofascist ruling clique, allowing it any ability to go nuclear is insanity. And this deal-which is no deal, simply a framework of keypoints which the Iranians have already walked back, allows them precisely the means to continue their march toward nuclear weaponry. The mullahs of Iran in their statements and actions are no different than Hitler's Nazis. And we know how well Chamberlain's Munich deal with Hitler worked out.
9
And if there is no deal, what is Iran sure to do with regard to its nuclear program? And if we walk away from a deal brokered with the help of Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China how will we be able to continue to maintain meaningful sanctions? And without improved diplomatic relations with Iran how can we even hope to be successful trying to address any of the many problems in the Middle East? And without an ever convenient mortal enemy how long will the mullahs be able to retain their tight-fisted control? The option here is to choose between a situation that is bad and is certain to stay that way, and situation that offers a possibility for improvement. When you seriously examine both sides of the coin, the better choice is obvious.
42
The Munich references that are continuously invoked by critics of this deal reveal a lack of any intellectual rigor. This is a variation on Godwin's Law, and tiresome.
20
It is high time that Israel's own "mullahs" take their heads off the sand. Maybe we can work out a deal to make Israel get rid of its nuclear arsenal.
17
I hope Mr. Cohen is correct, that this deal will get done and the embassy in Tehran is open four years hence. Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress and the right wingers in the American Enterprise Institute wish to first fear monger and then war monger until their goal of starting a war with another Mid East country is achieved. Although I follow their hyperbolic statements regarding the Iran negotiations, I haven't heard any alternative other than military force from them. They should be ignored, period.
146
Here is an alternative - from those of us did not support the Iraq War but dont have illusions about the Iranian government - Keep the sanctions but keep talking to the Iranians and support the real forces of reform in Iran (Rouhani is not a real reformer and Khamenei is the real
power). In 2009 (after elections which Roger Cohn celebrated as democratic, but which Iranian dissidents recognized as corrupt), the Iranian students and others
who demonstrated in the streets called for support from
Obama. He was silent.
power). In 2009 (after elections which Roger Cohn celebrated as democratic, but which Iranian dissidents recognized as corrupt), the Iranian students and others
who demonstrated in the streets called for support from
Obama. He was silent.
19
A real alternative is one that is likely to command support from both sides in negotiations. This is not an alternative - it is closer to an ultimatum.
1
"Here is an alternative - from those of us did not support the Iraq War but dont have illusions about the Iranian government - Keep the sanctions but keep talking to the Iranians and support the real forces of reform in Iran (Rouhani is not a real reformer and Khamenei is the real
power)."
And how long do you expect the Iranian government will keep listening?
Like it or not, the Iranian government is the Iranian _government_. What can you show, in what you propose, that changes the situation for the Iranian government in any way? If your answer is "nothing" then at least respect the fact that nobody does business that way.
power)."
And how long do you expect the Iranian government will keep listening?
Like it or not, the Iranian government is the Iranian _government_. What can you show, in what you propose, that changes the situation for the Iranian government in any way? If your answer is "nothing" then at least respect the fact that nobody does business that way.
2
Another excellent piece by the Man of Reason. At the risk of being continually labelled a "self-hating Jew" Roger has again hit several nails on the head, particularly with the following statement:
" .... It is not a bad thing to remind allies that enjoying irrevocable support from the United States cannot mean exercising a veto on American actions."
Spot on. It is time for Israel and Saudi Arabia to correct their own failings instead of concealing their human rights atrocities behind an Iranian smokescreen. How many heads have the Saudis chopped off this year so far? How much more Palestinian land has Israel stolen this year in flagrant rejection of U.S. demands?
If the Israeli, Saudi and U.S. hardliners can be kept under control I am certain we will see another side of Iran. But that is a big 'if'.
" .... It is not a bad thing to remind allies that enjoying irrevocable support from the United States cannot mean exercising a veto on American actions."
Spot on. It is time for Israel and Saudi Arabia to correct their own failings instead of concealing their human rights atrocities behind an Iranian smokescreen. How many heads have the Saudis chopped off this year so far? How much more Palestinian land has Israel stolen this year in flagrant rejection of U.S. demands?
If the Israeli, Saudi and U.S. hardliners can be kept under control I am certain we will see another side of Iran. But that is a big 'if'.
293
Bravo. Wonderful piece.
79
Before the U.S. and Iran can come to diplomatic terms, it might be helpful for the present U.S. government to acknowledge some of the legitimate grievances which lead to the breakdown orchestrated by previous governments and in the case of Henry Kissinger, somebody who used the State Department as his own private hobby - even when not in government.
I suspect this is not about to happen. The U.S. can certainly point to issues it would like Iran to move on, but diplomacy does require a bit of give and take.
I suspect this is not about to happen. The U.S. can certainly point to issues it would like Iran to move on, but diplomacy does require a bit of give and take.
4
"At the very least, if finalized, the deal condemns the United States and Iran to interact for more than a decade. They will be in conflict about most things. That’s alright. Institutionalized discord is far better than traumatized alienation."
Thank you Roger Cohen for this clear-eyed appraisal. I particularly like your choice of words, "condemns the US and Iran to interact for more than a decade." But more importantly, I pray to God this deal doesn't get derailed by either US or Iranian politics (US politics being more likely).
It's time to stop the endless cycle of chicken-hawk wars launched by armchair neocons and try a new approach. We lose nothing but have much to gain by breaking the ice, as you put it. I applaud this President, who with his Secretary of State, has worked so tirelessly to change the tone and tenor of US foreign policy in the most volatile part of the world.
Thank you Roger Cohen for this clear-eyed appraisal. I particularly like your choice of words, "condemns the US and Iran to interact for more than a decade." But more importantly, I pray to God this deal doesn't get derailed by either US or Iranian politics (US politics being more likely).
It's time to stop the endless cycle of chicken-hawk wars launched by armchair neocons and try a new approach. We lose nothing but have much to gain by breaking the ice, as you put it. I applaud this President, who with his Secretary of State, has worked so tirelessly to change the tone and tenor of US foreign policy in the most volatile part of the world.
337
Iran really is at a major crossroad. The combination of economic and demographic pressures inside their country are too much for the status quo to remain.
And likewise the United States Congress must understand that the Middle East Policies we have followed for the last 40 + years are grossly inadequate to deal with the current realities in that region and within the constantly changing Global economy.
How we move forward to this "third way" as Iranian President Rouhani phrased it will determine more then just US/Iranian relations. It sends a message to the world, not only for our allies but our adversaries as well.
This is how United States will operate in the 21st Century.
And likewise the United States Congress must understand that the Middle East Policies we have followed for the last 40 + years are grossly inadequate to deal with the current realities in that region and within the constantly changing Global economy.
How we move forward to this "third way" as Iranian President Rouhani phrased it will determine more then just US/Iranian relations. It sends a message to the world, not only for our allies but our adversaries as well.
This is how United States will operate in the 21st Century.
61
Yes, lets remember the embassy. Sanctions resumed, walls immediately breached, hostages taken.
This time heads get cut off.
This time heads get cut off.
2
The sad thing is that no one wants to remember the embassy take over of 1979. It's as though the seizure of the embassy by Iranian militants who held the staff hostage for 444 days never happened. This rush to embrace Iran despite its crimes against America is revisionist history at its worst.
You make this deal sound like it is fundamentally about the U.S. Mr. Cohen, but it is not. The U.S. is situated a far distance from Iran, and Iran poses no danger to its survival. If this extremely bad deal deal goes through, It is only Israel that will have to get up every morning wondering whether Iran will allow it to live to see another day. You praise the President's courage here, but acting to secure an imagined legacy while greatly endangering a friend is not the same thing as courage. For a real display of courage, we'll have to wait and see what Mr. Netanyahu's next steps are going to be.
7
Pretty soon people need to wake up and see Netanyahu and his opposition for what it really is. Netanyahu is not nearly as worried about Iran having nuclear weapons as he is about reconciliation between Iran and the U.S.. From Netanyahu's point of view, Israel is best served if the U.S. and Iran remain mortal enemies, and he is determined to do everything in his power to assure that they remain that way.
89
You make no sense. If he is not really concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons, why would he be so concerned about the US and Iran staying enemies?
3
A. Stanton,
Bad deal as opposed to what? As is typical of those opposed you offer no alternative. So what do you propose? Bomb Iran? That is just dumb.
You also ignore that Israel has 200+ "secret" nuclear weapons. So your claim that Israel will wake up everyday wondering if Iran will let it live is a really weak attempt at fear mongering.
Face it, the right has no idea what to do with Iran, so it falls back to its old stand by of war. Pathetic.
Bad deal as opposed to what? As is typical of those opposed you offer no alternative. So what do you propose? Bomb Iran? That is just dumb.
You also ignore that Israel has 200+ "secret" nuclear weapons. So your claim that Israel will wake up everyday wondering if Iran will let it live is a really weak attempt at fear mongering.
Face it, the right has no idea what to do with Iran, so it falls back to its old stand by of war. Pathetic.
15
I fear this will end badly, You are too optimistic. Iran is not our friend.
We have lost. By the hand of our own President.
We have lost. By the hand of our own President.
7
Exactly what do you fear? How will it end badly? Iran getting nuclear weapons will NOT be the end of the world, just look at all the other nations who got there and we still are alive and well. The Iranian clerical leadership does not speak for the majority of its people, in 20 years the current youngsters, drenched in internet imbued open world experiences, economic progress and prosperity will probably not be interested in war mongering but fashioning a world that will better support, their and their childrens' aspirations. Just compare this notion with what has happened in India, China, other Asian countries and even Russia to a degree.
No, conversation and constructive open dialogue is, by far, the better path to follow, it will lead us all to a better place.
No, conversation and constructive open dialogue is, by far, the better path to follow, it will lead us all to a better place.
8
are you ready to send your son ????
I'm not
I'm not
9
You have a better alternative?
9
"The 40th anniversary of the revolution, and the seizing of American hostages in Iran, is four years off. I’d bet on the United States Embassy in Tehran reopening then. The ice has broken."
I wouldn't hold my breath. After Obama leaves office, we will be left either with warmongering Republicans, or Hillary's neocon-lite act in the White House. Neither of those options wants anything but hostility with the Iranians.
I wouldn't hold my breath. After Obama leaves office, we will be left either with warmongering Republicans, or Hillary's neocon-lite act in the White House. Neither of those options wants anything but hostility with the Iranians.
10
"I wouldn't hold my breath. After Obama leaves office, we will be left either with warmongering Republicans, or Hillary's neocon-lite act in the White House. Neither of those options wants anything but hostility with the Iranians."
In that case it is important who you choose as candidate successors to Mr Obama, and it is important whom you elect to be his actual successor. Will you ensure the voting is done to support that?
In that case it is important who you choose as candidate successors to Mr Obama, and it is important whom you elect to be his actual successor. Will you ensure the voting is done to support that?
2
Hopefully, “not another bullet” gets fired in the Middle East thanks to this accord (at least between Western and Middle Eastern armies).
30
Actually many, many bullets are being fired in the Middle East (and North Africa) and will continue to be fired for many, many years. (Libya, Sinai, Iraq, Syria, Yemen). Iran has provided some of those bullets (and other weapons) and training by its Revolutionary Guard Corps
in the ongoing Sunni-Shia war that just got hotter in Yemen. Its quite naive to think that this framework (even if it does result in an agreement) will result in a more stable Middle East. It just strengthens Iran, which is a force for instability in the Middle East.
in the ongoing Sunni-Shia war that just got hotter in Yemen. Its quite naive to think that this framework (even if it does result in an agreement) will result in a more stable Middle East. It just strengthens Iran, which is a force for instability in the Middle East.
4
" It just strengthens Iran, which is a force for instability in the Middle East."
Yes, but what's the best way to reduce that force for instability?
Yes, but what's the best way to reduce that force for instability?
1
Is there no end to this and no limits to their hubris?
Be careful for the goose laying the golden eggs in Israel's nest may come to realize she is getting nothing but abuse in return.