My concern is the simple intelligence of this agreement is beyond those who are in opposition.
29
Rep. Levin apparently has no problem with letting Iran purchase missiles equipped with guidance systems pointing the missiles directly at Washington, DC and Israel. All Iran has to do is load the missiles with nuclear warheads and pull the trigger.
4
Thank you Mr. Cohen for a very reasoned analysis of the situation.
As you point out the average Iranian is much more moderate and open to western influence than the average Saudi. And as for accusations that Iran is exporting terrorism... The biggest terrorist threat today is from Sunni extremism which is largely funded by wealthy Saudis and which draws its recruits from extremist Sunni madrassahs that are actually funded by the Saudi State. People seem to forget that 10 out of 12 9/11 hijackers were Saudi... Not one was Iranian.
As you point out the average Iranian is much more moderate and open to western influence than the average Saudi. And as for accusations that Iran is exporting terrorism... The biggest terrorist threat today is from Sunni extremism which is largely funded by wealthy Saudis and which draws its recruits from extremist Sunni madrassahs that are actually funded by the Saudi State. People seem to forget that 10 out of 12 9/11 hijackers were Saudi... Not one was Iranian.
24
I read this article by a writer who is both pro-deal and pro-Israel (not against Israel's existence, anyway) in hopes of finding an attempt to justify the 24-day farce, something I have yet to find in any media. The search continues.
5
The only way this deal makes sense is if the Israeli perspective is correct. Basically if the biggest threat in the region is a nuclear Iran. If the biggest threat is a powerful and wealthy Iran in a seriously destabilized region is a bigger threat, then this is a bad deal. It seems likely that this deal will cause wars. It seems unlikely that these will be nuclear wars. I suppose that is worth something. It is also likely to prevent a US war in Iran for a while. Maybe this is Obama's goal? If so, he's saved a few thousand Americans, but it seems he has sentenced Middle Eastern humans to another Iran-Iraq war.
Is the real goal here to fight ISIS with Shia blood? Or to smackdown a growing Turkey? I just don't see the point unless Obama knows that Iran is really months from a bomb. I guess that possibility makes the most sense. Israel is right that Iran is breakout capable in months and the P5+1 has to act but just disagrees with Israel about what to do. Unfortunately, if this story is the true one we really are engaged in appeasement and peace in our time foolishness.
I can't see a positive interpretation unless this somehow unleashes the better side of the Iranian people. Do supporters expect the German miracle to occur in Iran on a rapidly compressed time scale?
Is the real goal here to fight ISIS with Shia blood? Or to smackdown a growing Turkey? I just don't see the point unless Obama knows that Iran is really months from a bomb. I guess that possibility makes the most sense. Israel is right that Iran is breakout capable in months and the P5+1 has to act but just disagrees with Israel about what to do. Unfortunately, if this story is the true one we really are engaged in appeasement and peace in our time foolishness.
I can't see a positive interpretation unless this somehow unleashes the better side of the Iranian people. Do supporters expect the German miracle to occur in Iran on a rapidly compressed time scale?
7
FACING FACTS Sander Levin, longest-serving Jewish member of the House, states that after careful review and study he supports the US deal with Iran. If you read the facts and figures in the article, they are persuasive that the controls on the nuclear deal with Iran is strong and effective. The naysayers are have responded consistently, if nothing else. There is always a group of The-Sky-Is-Falling members of Congress who look 15 years down the road and start crowing. About deficits, about Social Security, about Medicare. You name it, they're clucking over it. Their arguments never include an objective analysis of the facts that come to conclusions other than acting on their anxiety. Then there's Israel with the atomic bombs. Should Iran engage in using nuclear weapons, they will be engaging in mutually assured destruction, if not from Israel alone, then from all nations who condemn starting a nuclear war. The wild card are the Islamist extremists in Iran who believe that dying for Islam is more valuable than human life. People who hold such views are notoriously authoritarian and rigid. They tend not to engage in logical debate based on empirical fact, but rather on religious dogma. I fear that's another part of what's happening in the debate about the deal with Iran. Our home-grown religious zealots insist that they know better than anyone else because they have been chosen by what they claim to be "God" to do what's "right." Extreme Right a la 1964!
16
The agreement with Iran has one serious flaw. It does not free the region of unaccountable nuclear arms programs.
Unless an agreement is developed which requires Israel to accede to the same protocol as every other nation in the region, the situation will be unstable.
If Israel acknowledged having such a program, it would claim that it needs to defend itself with nuclear force. In fact Israel's nuclear force is useless. Israel is not going to be making a nuclear strike against China in the near future, Israel is threatening its immediate neighbors. At the current state of nuclear weapon art, a strike on a neighbor would be a strike on Israel itself.
On the contrary Israel is unchallenged in conventional weaponry, and has considerable political control over a close ally with immense, mobile armed capacity.
The real problem is that Israel does not have absolute control over the same sort of activities that were used to found the state of Israel. Nuclear force is irrelevant to this sort of conflict. Lehi would not have decided to become cooperative if the British had threatened it with an atom bomb.
Unless an agreement is developed which requires Israel to accede to the same protocol as every other nation in the region, the situation will be unstable.
If Israel acknowledged having such a program, it would claim that it needs to defend itself with nuclear force. In fact Israel's nuclear force is useless. Israel is not going to be making a nuclear strike against China in the near future, Israel is threatening its immediate neighbors. At the current state of nuclear weapon art, a strike on a neighbor would be a strike on Israel itself.
On the contrary Israel is unchallenged in conventional weaponry, and has considerable political control over a close ally with immense, mobile armed capacity.
The real problem is that Israel does not have absolute control over the same sort of activities that were used to found the state of Israel. Nuclear force is irrelevant to this sort of conflict. Lehi would not have decided to become cooperative if the British had threatened it with an atom bomb.
14
Why is the focus on Israel?
The Sunni-Shia conflict (1.5M dead) is the main problem. The second problem is Sunni extremism. The third problem is Shia extremism. Then Israeli extremism. Then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (those last two may deserve equal footing if you wish to exclude Palestinians from the Sunni group.)
This deal will cause wars. Hundreds of thousands will die. Similar numbers are already dying in Sunni violence and this will significantly alter the field for ISIS, but it is hard to see peace as a dividend.
The only justification for the deal is that it will very likely reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately, it will enhance Saudi Arabia's nuclear motivations and will have pretty unpredictable effects on the rest of the Middle East, not to mention Pakistan.
This is a poorly considered deal for which the entire debate focuses on Israel. How long will Jordan hold out? When are the next revolutions in Egypt an Lebanon? Will Iraq splinter between Syria and Iran? The focus on Israel shifts focus from the very real possibility of something like the Iran-Iraq war killing another million.
The difference between this and our Soviet nuclear deals is that the USSR wasn't the counterweight that prevented war in Western Europe. We didn't need a complete change of course by the USSR for those deals to work. Here a stonger/wealthier Iraq without nukes is still massively destabilizing in a war prone region.
The Sunni-Shia conflict (1.5M dead) is the main problem. The second problem is Sunni extremism. The third problem is Shia extremism. Then Israeli extremism. Then the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (those last two may deserve equal footing if you wish to exclude Palestinians from the Sunni group.)
This deal will cause wars. Hundreds of thousands will die. Similar numbers are already dying in Sunni violence and this will significantly alter the field for ISIS, but it is hard to see peace as a dividend.
The only justification for the deal is that it will very likely reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately, it will enhance Saudi Arabia's nuclear motivations and will have pretty unpredictable effects on the rest of the Middle East, not to mention Pakistan.
This is a poorly considered deal for which the entire debate focuses on Israel. How long will Jordan hold out? When are the next revolutions in Egypt an Lebanon? Will Iraq splinter between Syria and Iran? The focus on Israel shifts focus from the very real possibility of something like the Iran-Iraq war killing another million.
The difference between this and our Soviet nuclear deals is that the USSR wasn't the counterweight that prevented war in Western Europe. We didn't need a complete change of course by the USSR for those deals to work. Here a stonger/wealthier Iraq without nukes is still massively destabilizing in a war prone region.
4
The American Jewish Community is one factor that has to be taken into account. Generally leaning heavily toward the Israeli side on most issues, there is still a certain mistrust, at least among some, for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Perhaps its time that they took the time to study the facts, like Senator Levin, as well as the former heads of both domestic and foreign Israeli Intelligence did. The intelligence chiefs agree that, if America walks away from this deal, Israel would be the loser.
Perhaps its time that they took the time to study the facts, like Senator Levin, as well as the former heads of both domestic and foreign Israeli Intelligence did. The intelligence chiefs agree that, if America walks away from this deal, Israel would be the loser.
12
if iran with nukes is an existential threat to Israel is Israel with its nukes an existential threat to iran?
14
This is one of the best columns in favor of the Iran deal that I have come across. People who do not have memories beyond Iran's American hostage taking, and thus know nothing about the US helping to overthrow democratically elected leaders in 1953, and sick the brutal regime of the Shah upon the Iranians, should keep their not-hindered-by-knowledge pie holes closed. As far as the Saudis are concerned: pfffft. I don't understand why we are 'friends' with a country that still lives in the middle ages.
17
If this were a republican making the exact same deal, most members of congress both Democrat and Republican would vote it through. Once again we have the same story from the republicans and Fox that has been going on since Obama took office. They will never approve one single thing that he proposes. Their hate for our president is unfathomable.
22
Would ( really ) any candidate dare to agree with tbis Agreement
before an election ?
before an election ?
1
If they have any guts. Do we have any candidates like that?
11
If the Iran deal is in fact "the best way to achieve" the goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon, why would Saudi Arabia, which fears Iran, oppose the deal? Because Saudi Arabia is Sunni and Iran is pro-Shia? That's ridiculous. No, it's because Saudi Arabia (like Israel) has reasonably concluded that the deal is not a good way to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, let alone the best way to do so. You and Representative Levin are entitled to your own opinions but have no right to question the motives of Saudi Arabia or members of Congress who oppose the deal.
6
To all the commenters against the accord which is between six nations and Iran and, while not perfect in an imperfect life we all lead, is still supported by hundreds of thoughtful people in our and any many other nations diplomatic corps AND even by many former Israeli security leaders who are unconstrained by the right wing taint of its current politics.
Pray, tell us…what SPECIFICALLY AND WITH LOGIC AND SUPPORTING FACTS IS YOUR "BETTER PLAN" to quote the geniuses on the right.
Tell us.
We're waiting.
And, no insulting our intelligence with the usual insufferable, childish drivel please. Quite frankly it hurts our brains.
We're not part of the "Trump-Dumb" cabal which passes for leadership among your kind.
Pray, tell us…what SPECIFICALLY AND WITH LOGIC AND SUPPORTING FACTS IS YOUR "BETTER PLAN" to quote the geniuses on the right.
Tell us.
We're waiting.
And, no insulting our intelligence with the usual insufferable, childish drivel please. Quite frankly it hurts our brains.
We're not part of the "Trump-Dumb" cabal which passes for leadership among your kind.
20
Paul -- dude -- what do you mean by "your kind."
Here's some info for you. The burden of proof in science, law, academia lies with whomever sets forth the proposition. Obama and Kerry and kindred spirits who constructed this deal have to make the case. The rest of us are under no obligation -- legal, logical, philosophical, etc -- to disprove their proposition. But unless they convince us, we should vote against the deal -- retain the status quo. I could say -- hey, there's green cheese on the dark side of the moon. I love green cheese, it tastes good -- let's invest heavily in rockets so we can retrieve it --and by the way, I believe green cheese is a great source of renewable, clean energy. But guess what, we'd be stupid to go along with my proposition if I can't provide convincing evidence. We don't have to disprove every stupid proposition that comes along ( biofuels from corn -- who believes now that works?), it's up to those who make the proposition to convince the rest of us. With proof, not emotion, hope etc.
Personally, I believe the Iran deal is bad. But it's not up to me to prove it's bad or propose a better deal (a better straw man never existed than the Obama admin's failure to engage congress, pass the deal then say -- what have you got that is better?). Kerry, Obama, et al need to convince the Senate and the public that this deal is good for us. They have the burden of proof -- period.
Here's some info for you. The burden of proof in science, law, academia lies with whomever sets forth the proposition. Obama and Kerry and kindred spirits who constructed this deal have to make the case. The rest of us are under no obligation -- legal, logical, philosophical, etc -- to disprove their proposition. But unless they convince us, we should vote against the deal -- retain the status quo. I could say -- hey, there's green cheese on the dark side of the moon. I love green cheese, it tastes good -- let's invest heavily in rockets so we can retrieve it --and by the way, I believe green cheese is a great source of renewable, clean energy. But guess what, we'd be stupid to go along with my proposition if I can't provide convincing evidence. We don't have to disprove every stupid proposition that comes along ( biofuels from corn -- who believes now that works?), it's up to those who make the proposition to convince the rest of us. With proof, not emotion, hope etc.
Personally, I believe the Iran deal is bad. But it's not up to me to prove it's bad or propose a better deal (a better straw man never existed than the Obama admin's failure to engage congress, pass the deal then say -- what have you got that is better?). Kerry, Obama, et al need to convince the Senate and the public that this deal is good for us. They have the burden of proof -- period.
7
Does rep levin know what is in the side deals? That is essential if you really are doing your research.
I am in favor of this agreement, but only if congress gets to review the side deals that secy Kerry did not see.!
I am in favor of this agreement, but only if congress gets to review the side deals that secy Kerry did not see.!
5
The T.V. commercial against the Iran deal is full of outright lies. And it runs ad nauseam! Congressman Levin got it right.
17
The ending of this article, American National Interest, says it all, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, but our interest, first and foremost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4
Though not exactly to be on the subject today, would comment on:
"His words were important for 2 reasons.
First, they defied a prevalent political culture of ignoring inconvenient facts, consulting narrowly if at all, and never saying what you believe when it’s not what your constituency wants to hear. ..."
I agree however: Sen. Levin is reaching beyond what would amount to an abrogation of duty here, as to the deal with Iran.
But this leads to the question of why our leaders so often succumb to such a 'prevalent political culture' that amounts to sheer ignorance of the facts, and listening to only what you in your narrow-mindedness, want to hear ... and appealing to voters on a similarly ignorant basis.
Well, this isn't all on an ignorant basis, because, if that's what gets votes, then that's how to do, how to talk, and ignorance then effectively rules the U.S.
And it points out how ignorant anyone has become when they heed such narrow-minded, ignorant talk.
But that's not altogether ignorance either, because those leaders, those congressmen, do promise things, and do distract the voters also, by promoting the selfish demands, by PACS, etc.;
they do lead the voters on, by taking one-sided, wrongful, even sadistic viewpoints, on matters affecting diplomacy, affecting how the U.S. decides, mostly on basis of ignorance, for wars, instead of on effective diplomacy. The citizenry, by being gullible enough not to demand more of their leaders, have been failing also.
"His words were important for 2 reasons.
First, they defied a prevalent political culture of ignoring inconvenient facts, consulting narrowly if at all, and never saying what you believe when it’s not what your constituency wants to hear. ..."
I agree however: Sen. Levin is reaching beyond what would amount to an abrogation of duty here, as to the deal with Iran.
But this leads to the question of why our leaders so often succumb to such a 'prevalent political culture' that amounts to sheer ignorance of the facts, and listening to only what you in your narrow-mindedness, want to hear ... and appealing to voters on a similarly ignorant basis.
Well, this isn't all on an ignorant basis, because, if that's what gets votes, then that's how to do, how to talk, and ignorance then effectively rules the U.S.
And it points out how ignorant anyone has become when they heed such narrow-minded, ignorant talk.
But that's not altogether ignorance either, because those leaders, those congressmen, do promise things, and do distract the voters also, by promoting the selfish demands, by PACS, etc.;
they do lead the voters on, by taking one-sided, wrongful, even sadistic viewpoints, on matters affecting diplomacy, affecting how the U.S. decides, mostly on basis of ignorance, for wars, instead of on effective diplomacy. The citizenry, by being gullible enough not to demand more of their leaders, have been failing also.
1
Three cheers for common sense!!!
Thank you Roger
Thank you Roger
8
I would comment further:
"His words were important for two reasons. First, they defied a prevalent political culture of ignoring inconvenient facts, consulting narrowly if at all, and never saying what you believe when it’s not what your constituency wants to hear. ..."
I agree however that Rep. Levin is reaching beyond what amounts to a forsaking of one's duty as a congressman here, as to a deal with Iran.
But this leads to the question of why our leaders so often succumb to such a 'prevalent political culture' that amounts to sheer ignorance of the facts, and listening to only what you in your narrow-mindedness, want to hear ... appealing to voters on such a similarly ignorant basis.
Well, it isn't all on an ignorant basis, because if that's what gets votes, then that's how to do, how to talk, and ignorance then effectively rules.
And it points out how ignorant the voters have become, when they listen to such narrow-minded talk.
But that's not altogether ignorance either, because those leaders, those congressmen, do promise things to the voters, and do distract the voters, by concentrating on the selfish kinds of things, and do lead the voters on by taking one-sided outright wrong, and even sadistic, viewpoints on matters affecting diplomacy, and how the U.S. decides, mostly on basis of ignorance, for wars instead of on effective diplomacy.
The citizenry, by being gullible enough not to demand more of their leaders, have also been failing.
"His words were important for two reasons. First, they defied a prevalent political culture of ignoring inconvenient facts, consulting narrowly if at all, and never saying what you believe when it’s not what your constituency wants to hear. ..."
I agree however that Rep. Levin is reaching beyond what amounts to a forsaking of one's duty as a congressman here, as to a deal with Iran.
But this leads to the question of why our leaders so often succumb to such a 'prevalent political culture' that amounts to sheer ignorance of the facts, and listening to only what you in your narrow-mindedness, want to hear ... appealing to voters on such a similarly ignorant basis.
Well, it isn't all on an ignorant basis, because if that's what gets votes, then that's how to do, how to talk, and ignorance then effectively rules.
And it points out how ignorant the voters have become, when they listen to such narrow-minded talk.
But that's not altogether ignorance either, because those leaders, those congressmen, do promise things to the voters, and do distract the voters, by concentrating on the selfish kinds of things, and do lead the voters on by taking one-sided outright wrong, and even sadistic, viewpoints on matters affecting diplomacy, and how the U.S. decides, mostly on basis of ignorance, for wars instead of on effective diplomacy.
The citizenry, by being gullible enough not to demand more of their leaders, have also been failing.
5
As usual the GOP has made a side show out of the United States. No matter what they really think they will follow the party line because they hate President Obama and love Israel. Whats good for america and its people does not play into their actions. The reason Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany will approve this deal and profit by it is they really do not care what Israel thinks.
12
And in 15 years young people in Iran will be the power brokers and they may have different ideas about peace than the current ruling parties. (They may be less bent on building a bomb.)
However, I am not sure Roger Cohen understands that the REAL reason congress is opposed to the deal is because it was obtained under President Obama and they HATE anything Obama tries to do.
However, I am not sure Roger Cohen understands that the REAL reason congress is opposed to the deal is because it was obtained under President Obama and they HATE anything Obama tries to do.
18
I have been inundated with Israeli and American Jewish screeds that make Huckabee look only slightly off-base. Ignorance of the details of the Iran plan seems widespread. WHo encourages that? Bibi's one source, playing on real fears all who love Israel have. And GOP retreads who need Jewish votes in 2016. Finally, we have religious nitbars hoping for Final Days in their lifetimes.
No science supports these groups and no political realism. Politics is the art of the possible. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes. Britain and France still do, too. And we have scads. The Iran deal, like the USSR-era deals, is crucial to slightly lowering the risk of a ME nuclear exchange. That is worth more than a small gain for an embattled Bibi and the Gop. It is a monumental achievement. Don't let the Right go so wrong.
No science supports these groups and no political realism. Politics is the art of the possible. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel have nukes. Britain and France still do, too. And we have scads. The Iran deal, like the USSR-era deals, is crucial to slightly lowering the risk of a ME nuclear exchange. That is worth more than a small gain for an embattled Bibi and the Gop. It is a monumental achievement. Don't let the Right go so wrong.
16
Mr. Cohen, in my opinion, is one of the best writers the NY Times has, his reputation as impartial, honest and very logical reporter, preceed him. I am sure that he really believes in the statement made by Representative Levin, many do. But he does not have to add the fact that Mr. Levin is Jewish to create the impression that because Mr Levin is Jewish his conclusions carry more weight. The fact that according to Mr. Levin the agreement is “the best way to achieve” the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon, an outcome that will make Israel, the Middle East and the world “far more secure”, No, Mr. Cohen, its not the best way attainable especially not in the real world of ineradicable Iranian nuclear know-how. The virtual separation created by President Obama between Irans nuclear aims and its being a terror leader of the world is a grave mistake and to bring the Saudis into the equation is a mistake. Unlike President Obama, who, like Britain's foriegn minister Neville Chamberlain, really wants peacefull solution, the Ayatollahs accepted the treaty because they had no coice, the economic sunctions hurt them badly. Now they have 10-15 years to aggresively enhance their terror plans and all the monies needed for it (in any case they will continue, secrately, to develop their nuclear capabilities). How do i know it? because they say so, Mr Obama knows it as well.
7
Roger, your comments on the reality of Saudi Arabia are bang on. But I wish that you were as honest about Israel. Exactly the same question could be asked of Israel: what has it done for the US? Israel has been an enormous strategic liability. Israel's continued and completely indefensible settlement of Palestine has created a situation where the US is - quite rightly and justifiably - blamed by the Muslim world (and much of the world beyond that) for facilitating and enabling the brutal Israeli oppression of a subject people. The reality that Israel has no moral grounds on which to stand when it comes to the Palestinians is evident and obvious to the great majority of people around the world. The US inability to rein in Israel and do the right thing by the Palestinians has given an irrefutable argument to Islamic fundamentalist groups that wish to paint the US as a racist and imperialist power. At the same time, the US ability to strengthen its relations with the Islamic world has been held hostage to the interests of Israel and its American supporters. The entire mess with Iran demonstrates this. How much easier would a rapprochement with Iran have been if US governments were not covering for Israel as it continues its actions against the people of Palestine? If the US was a true honest broker in the Israeli-Arab conflict, it would be better able to both protect Israel and prevent that state from continually exacerbating the conflict.
19
We've had plenty of references to Munich by opponents of this accord; fair enough, I suppose. What they've been silent about, however, is any reference to the Iraq War, which at the outset many, if not most, of the opponents of the Iran accord vigorously supported, including Israel's PM. Then, it was doomsday for the world over (non-existent) WMDs.
So, let's get it on the record: do the opponents of the Iran accord think the Iraq War was in retrospect a good idea? If they do, I'd like to know their reasons; if they don't, I'd like to know why their judgments on strategic matters/geopolitics should be accorded much credibility.
So, let's get it on the record: do the opponents of the Iran accord think the Iraq War was in retrospect a good idea? If they do, I'd like to know their reasons; if they don't, I'd like to know why their judgments on strategic matters/geopolitics should be accorded much credibility.
55
Roger Cohen makes the point that the most persistent hostility towards the Iranian deal hails from Saudi Arabia.
Israel is a nuclear-armed state and has the first-strike capabilities, if it feels threatened. Netanyahu's rant is just rhetoric, to garner domestic support.
Saudi Arabia is in a different position. Its leaders are extremely wary of Iran's potential as an oil-producer and as a country with an educated population. So the Shia-Sunni divide comes in handy to fuel sectarian tensions in the region and to demonise the deal.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia were to be able to acquire nuclear arms, it's unclear whether Iran would use its nukes. Yet I'm not so sure about Saudi Arabia, which tends to be impetuous and deal with crisis heavy-handedly.
Israel is a nuclear-armed state and has the first-strike capabilities, if it feels threatened. Netanyahu's rant is just rhetoric, to garner domestic support.
Saudi Arabia is in a different position. Its leaders are extremely wary of Iran's potential as an oil-producer and as a country with an educated population. So the Shia-Sunni divide comes in handy to fuel sectarian tensions in the region and to demonise the deal.
If Iran and Saudi Arabia were to be able to acquire nuclear arms, it's unclear whether Iran would use its nukes. Yet I'm not so sure about Saudi Arabia, which tends to be impetuous and deal with crisis heavy-handedly.
10
Backing the wrong horse....deja vu?
1
I compliment Mr. Levin for, first of all having read the Constitution where it clearly states the separation of Church & State, and second for having read the Iran nuclear control agreement and remembering that he is elected to represent America's interests, not Israel's.
I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might block the agreement. My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was there to defend the interests of Israel! Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!! And my Senator, Chuck Shumer, a huge recipient of AIPAC dollars likewise should remember who he represents.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
I find it particularly galling that Israel, dominated by a group of religious extremists, itself sitting on a huge undeclared arsenal of atomic weapons, including hydrogen bombs, would so vocally oppose this sensible agreement. Perhaps the only thing more galling is that this tiny nation, the largest single recipient of US foreign aid over the last 4 decades, can skillfully use checkbook lobbying to so influence our Congress that there can be concern that Congress might block the agreement. My own Congressman, Jerry Nadler, wrote me saying that he was there to defend the interests of Israel! Hey, who elected him? He is there to protect the interests of Americans!! And my Senator, Chuck Shumer, a huge recipient of AIPAC dollars likewise should remember who he represents.
Israel with at least 200 nuclear weapons is not a member of the IAEA, refuses to sign the NPT & allows NO international inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it possible that so many members of Congress blithely condone this behavior while criticizing the agreement with Iran? The answer is money spread widely throughout the halls of Congress by the clever operatives of the AIPAC.
19
Sander Levin believes in facts. How quaint these days.
10
Precisely. Why do we care about what Saudi Arabia thinks?
10
The Saudis are not our true friend. It is a petulant child that continues to prove to be a problem, yet since they have oil, we have to put up with them. Our national interest seem not to be the same as Israel's since fear of almost everything is in Israel's interest. Israel must tell the world of fear regardless as to weather it is real or not in order to justify many things they do. Should we be wary of Iran, of course. Should we continue to try to have a better relationship and ultimately bring them around, of course. Only idiot can claim that we should not try to work out an agreement, but make them suffer more since that will only make then worse. Once Iran's people see the benefit of cooperation, I believe they will come around, regardless of the religious leaders. All around the world young people are questioning religion. The web has opened the eyes to many of the stupidity of organized religions.
6
Niether is Isreal
Will you now be identifying all members of congress by their religion or only the Jews? Perhaps you should break it down further by their type of affiliation, ie. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform etc.
3
What about the other 434 members of Congress Roger?? If the Iran deal is the only way to go why is Secretary Kerry having such a hard time trying to seal the deal with a skeptical Congress? Representative Levin is just one Congressman and has only one vote. That 60 day time period that Congress has to decide to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to the agreement has started and the clock is ticking. The Times didn't post my comment to Nick Kristof's column yesterday which makes it hard for skeptics like me who simply do not trust Iran to make our voices heard. I think it's really sad and scary that the Times foreign affairs columnists choose to see Iran through rose colored glasses and have succeeded in romanticizing this dangerous country.
3
Re: "What about the other 434 members of Congress - - " Wonder what the average I.Q. is of those 434 members is, compared to Representative Levin's?
A strong Iran will bring peace to the Middle East.
A strong Iran will force Israel to cede land for a Free Palestinian State which will lead to peace throughout the entire region.
A strong Iran will force Israel to cede land for a Free Palestinian State which will lead to peace throughout the entire region.
11
Roger Cohen, a very fine statement, notable for providing in two paragraphs the best truth telling about our ally, Saudi Arabia, that I have seen.
Would that Barack Obama read these two paragraphs, reflect, and then make use of them in his becoming the new final-18 month President of the United States of America.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Would that Barack Obama read these two paragraphs, reflect, and then make use of them in his becoming the new final-18 month President of the United States of America.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
5
Hundreds of years ago, Machiavelli stated well that an effective leader rewards his friends and punishes his enemies. Obama consistently punishes our friends--Israel, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Canada--and rewards our enemies--Iran, Russia, Cuba. This is why everyone hates the United States. Respect and affection for the United States (based on multiple international polls) is at an all time low. In fact, America's reputation is now much lower than it ever was under the much reviled President George W. Bush.
When it comes to American fecklessness, the Saudis are right. Under President Obama, we have been feckless in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen, just to name a few places that happen to have geographic and cultural proximity to Saudi Arabia. Anyone who suggests that American policies toward these countries has been anything other than a disaster has lost their grip on reality.
When it comes to American fecklessness, the Saudis are right. Under President Obama, we have been feckless in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen, just to name a few places that happen to have geographic and cultural proximity to Saudi Arabia. Anyone who suggests that American policies toward these countries has been anything other than a disaster has lost their grip on reality.
2
What would have done differently. Another Iraq?
3
Protectorates are not Allies, the advice of a Protectorate has no weight.
Please share links to those polls... One at the end of 2007 and any other most recent poll
Try this link - http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/17/
Don't the moderators flag comments that are full of lies??
Try this link - http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/17/
Don't the moderators flag comments that are full of lies??
6
Recalling the rage of young Iranians toward America in the late 1970s, my first reaction to the Iran deal was to wonder whether the feelings of today’s young Iranians could really have softened enough to make rapprochement with Iran remotely realistic. But this evening I read an article by a senior diplomat from another country with whom we had “strained relations” only a few years before the fall of the Shah. In somewhat mechanical party-checklist style, the diplomat summarized the progress that Vietnam and America have made together since the re-establishment of diplomatic ties two decades ago, and then he listed the items that still need work. The article’s “business-as-usual” tone made it clear that Vietnam views the relationship as being not yet perfect, but definitely worth working on. Iran’s top leaders are old enough to remember the events that aroused Iran’s fury toward America. But among the senior leaders of Vietnam there must be many who recall the war that took three million Vietnamese lives. Perhaps in Iran, as in Vietnam, we are nearing the time to pick up where we left off.
4
Insightful article.
In my opinion Anerican people deserve to know the costs and benefits of those allies. They seem a bunch of troublemaker and useless regimes that we have to clean up their mess. It's not just Saudi, look at Turkey or Pakistan. Why is it in our national interest to close eyes on things those guys do that harms us? It wasn't enough that Turkey been supporting the extremists in Syria ans Iran, now they are creating another crisis by moving against the Kurds. We babysit our troublemaking allies, cater to them, and sacrifice our real allies (the Kurds) to please them or assist them with their u democratic and domestic agendas, so much of an accomplishment for a superpower!
In my opinion Anerican people deserve to know the costs and benefits of those allies. They seem a bunch of troublemaker and useless regimes that we have to clean up their mess. It's not just Saudi, look at Turkey or Pakistan. Why is it in our national interest to close eyes on things those guys do that harms us? It wasn't enough that Turkey been supporting the extremists in Syria ans Iran, now they are creating another crisis by moving against the Kurds. We babysit our troublemaking allies, cater to them, and sacrifice our real allies (the Kurds) to please them or assist them with their u democratic and domestic agendas, so much of an accomplishment for a superpower!
3
So it has come to this: our foreign policy and that of much of the rest of the civilized world focuses on the juvenile rivalry among some ancient, minor and extremely violent factions of a religion that is otherwise totally irrelevant in the contemporary world.
7
There is no upside, as evidenced by the phrase of " . . . if fully implemented, . . . "
It will never be fully implemented nor will inspections be invasive, comprehensive and conclusive enough to assure any level of compliance. It's not even a deal. It's an evasion of responsibility, a capitulation.
And the real losers are the opposition in Iran who are now on the defensive because the regime has scored a huge economic and public relations victory. Political debate and real democracy were just set back decades in Iran thanks to Obama and his coterie of appeasers.
It will never be fully implemented nor will inspections be invasive, comprehensive and conclusive enough to assure any level of compliance. It's not even a deal. It's an evasion of responsibility, a capitulation.
And the real losers are the opposition in Iran who are now on the defensive because the regime has scored a huge economic and public relations victory. Political debate and real democracy were just set back decades in Iran thanks to Obama and his coterie of appeasers.
11
Cohen trots out former US ambassadors to Israel who support this deal. As if that is supposed to mean that the deal is good for Israel. It is enormously disrespectful to the Israeli people to tell them what is good for them. Israelis are very tuned into politics and the mideast. They know what is good for them and what not. Over 90% of Israelis oppose this deal. There is basically no other issue that so many Israelis agree on. That should be an unequivocal case that Israel would be a loser here. To try to sugarcoat it is misleading and patronizing.
The goal with Iran should be to stop the damage of terrorism. Nukes is a means to that end. But this deal's most likely outcome is to increase the threat of terrorism. Iran will gain billions and it has already told us it will use the funds to support terrorism.
The goal with Iran should be to stop the damage of terrorism. Nukes is a means to that end. But this deal's most likely outcome is to increase the threat of terrorism. Iran will gain billions and it has already told us it will use the funds to support terrorism.
11
It is also enormous disrepect for the Americans people for Israel to tell us what is good for them. It work both ways.
11
It's also enormously disrespectful for Isreal to interfere in U.S. Politics. Especially when we give them $300b per year. If Isreal wants a war with Iran go for it but leave us out.
If Israelis knew what was good for them, they would have stopped building settlements in Occupied Palestine. In fact, it's quite evident that Israelis don't know what is good for them. They have created a reactionary, far-right state that is steeped in ethnic and religious nationalism and which can only function if it is creating enemies. Israel, quite frankly, needs to be saved from itself.
7
The latest revelation in this ling-running farce is Iran's claim once again, that it will not allow inspections of military sites. What is a military site? Whatever Iran says it is.
Meanwhile we have also learned that the Obama administration has limited
public access to non-secret related documents, while other side agreements have not been, and will not be, examined by Congress. And this is being sold as "peace in our time". What a tragedy.
arcaneone
Israel
Meanwhile we have also learned that the Obama administration has limited
public access to non-secret related documents, while other side agreements have not been, and will not be, examined by Congress. And this is being sold as "peace in our time". What a tragedy.
arcaneone
Israel
With all the turmoil among Middle East countries, which are separated by different tribes etc., it is a commendable thing the group of non-Middle Eastern countries have achieved through negotiations. Many arguments against it are coming from self-serving entities whose ultimate goal is not a peaceful solution to the problems. The deal must be implemented...in spite of them...for the sake of peace...both globally, and in the Middle East. There is no justifiable basis for argument.
4
So the Republican political machine is lying, and they know they are lying, all for propaganda and their desire to take the stage away from Obama. They are like the kid at the birthday party who has to clamor and make a fuss because it's not his party and he's not the center of attention. So the obvious interest of Republicans is their own political advancement - even if it means playing with fire in the middle east - even if it means potentially tens of thousands of people if not hundreds of thousand, dead from the almost certain war that isolation, poverty, and hatreds their sanctions and self righteous chastisement would cause. This absence of appeal to reason and facts and sober debate - in favor of political greed and showmanship - tells of just how evil and dangerous these Republican politicians are. Shame on them. And shame on us for voting people so feeble of character into power.
9
This is a false argument, started by Obama and perpetuated by his supporters.
The alternative to a bad deal is war? How about this for an alternative, a better deal. One that doesn't require a month of notice before inspections, one that doesn't lift the ban on Iran getting ballistic missiles, one that puts controls on funding/arming terrorism, one that, oh I don't know, requires Iran not be holding any hostages of any of the P5+1 before the most powerful country in the world along with the 5 others releases $150 billion to a country they have collectively put on its proverbial knees. The leverage that President Obama wasted here is almost incomprehensible.
Obama's suggestion that the other sanctions countries would drop their efforts if we walked away from this deal is disingenuous at best. If the other countries were losing patience with holding sanctions on Iran, a simple Google search proves it to be the best kept secret in the history of the world. Further, this argument ignores that it was exclusively a fevered push by Obama to achieve a deal that could be walked away from in the first place.
No, this was not necessitated by some loss of patience by the other countries, Obama very much wanted this deal. Expect President Obama to travel to Tehran a la Nixon to China prior to leaving office as his foreign policy opus. He can already see the cover of Time magazine.
The alternative to a bad deal is war? How about this for an alternative, a better deal. One that doesn't require a month of notice before inspections, one that doesn't lift the ban on Iran getting ballistic missiles, one that puts controls on funding/arming terrorism, one that, oh I don't know, requires Iran not be holding any hostages of any of the P5+1 before the most powerful country in the world along with the 5 others releases $150 billion to a country they have collectively put on its proverbial knees. The leverage that President Obama wasted here is almost incomprehensible.
Obama's suggestion that the other sanctions countries would drop their efforts if we walked away from this deal is disingenuous at best. If the other countries were losing patience with holding sanctions on Iran, a simple Google search proves it to be the best kept secret in the history of the world. Further, this argument ignores that it was exclusively a fevered push by Obama to achieve a deal that could be walked away from in the first place.
No, this was not necessitated by some loss of patience by the other countries, Obama very much wanted this deal. Expect President Obama to travel to Tehran a la Nixon to China prior to leaving office as his foreign policy opus. He can already see the cover of Time magazine.
1
Getting whole sovereign nations to say "uncle" to USA and 5 other nations is not the way to win friends and influence people in the 21st century. Face it the 1950s are over.
1
I am not sorry or surprised to see a democrat turn on others of his religious faith for political loyalties, since we all watched Harry Reid do the same thing dozens of times in 2012.
What shocks me is that people who have been watching the scene since President Carter's days in office actually believe what these doctrinnaire terrorists say. Who do they think they are kidding?
When angry Islamists on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide proudly brag that they always lie to non-Muslims and never meet the other's goals despite their promises, this fake treaty becomes an intelligence test. For Mr. Obama to have kept secret side agreements that he made with the mad mullahs simply marks him a an eloquent liar for the 200th or 500th time.
What shocks me is that people who have been watching the scene since President Carter's days in office actually believe what these doctrinnaire terrorists say. Who do they think they are kidding?
When angry Islamists on both sides of the Sunni-Shia divide proudly brag that they always lie to non-Muslims and never meet the other's goals despite their promises, this fake treaty becomes an intelligence test. For Mr. Obama to have kept secret side agreements that he made with the mad mullahs simply marks him a an eloquent liar for the 200th or 500th time.
3
Where do the allegiances of Jewish-Americans lie- with the U.S. or Israel?
15
Rhetorical question? If only there was an answer....we would all love to know
ILevin is just a shill for Obama. As more and more details of the deal with Iran come out, it only gets worse and worse. There will be no snap inspections. There are secret side deals with the United Nations that we don't know about. In addition to allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program, missile program, American hostages, and terrorist network, Obama has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the 'inspection' of one of the most important nuclear sites – the Parchin military complex. In all likelihood, the ayatollahs are already at work violating the accords. After all, Iran has systematically breached its voluntarily-assumed obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for more than 30 years.The Iran deal is 159 pages long and is well worth the read. If you peruse it, you should compare the president's statements about what's in the deal with what the deal actually says. You won't be surprised to find out that Obama is trying to sell America a bill of goods by lying about the agreement's contents
2
"Because the accord, if fully implemented, slashes Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent, prevents enrichment above 3.67 percent (a long way from bomb grade) for 15 years, intensifies international inspections exponentially, holds Iran at least a year from having enough material to produce a weapon (as opposed to the current two months), cuts off a plutonium route to a bomb, preserves all American options in combating Iranian support for Hezbollah"
Ah, but it does not make them say Uncle!
In that case, it is totally unsatisfactory to us All-American Patriots.
Ah, but it does not make them say Uncle!
In that case, it is totally unsatisfactory to us All-American Patriots.
3
Sander Levin was once my lawyer. I have never forgotten his calm, his ability to get to the core of a matter, and his intelligence. I am heartened but not surprised to read of his thoughtful appraisal of the deal.
The alternative? Another endless, expensive in blood and treasure and ultimately failure of a war.
The alternative? Another endless, expensive in blood and treasure and ultimately failure of a war.
7
i presume bibi is not friends with the
foreign minister anymore
foreign minister anymore
1
I am a Jew and a Zionist. I think Iran deal is the best among all options Israel can ever reasonably expect. Idea that we can and should bomb them into dismantling the nuclear structure is another Iraq like "liberation" fantasy that will have a huge costs to US and may have serious unintended consequences for the region. Chest beating Republicans who don't understand that US will be isolated globally if we don't accept this deal and opt for another knee-jerk war that will not only drain US coffer but erode our influence globally to the extent that it become the beginning of an unbecoming of our status as a Superpower.
11
An apropos anecdote:
A scorpion asked the fox to take him across the river.
The fox said, "Why would I take you, you could kill me with one sting."
"Why would I do that? I can't swim. I would also drown."
The fox accepted that reasoning and allowed the scorpion to ride on his back. Half-way across the river the scorpion stung him.
"Why did you do that? I am going to drown and you will drown with me."
The scorpion replies, "You forgot one important thing. I am the Ayatollah."
1
Like many other supporters of this agreement, Cohen focuses on opposition by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as though these were the only countries with strong reservations about the deal. (I suspect that this emphasis is not accidental, but reflects a rhetorical attempt to tar critics of the agreement by association with governments that are widely unpopular.) In fact, though, many other governments oppose this deal. John Vincour just published an excellent piece in the Wall Street Journal noting strong French opposition to the agreement and dismay at Obama's inept bargaining and general naivete. Although this was news to me, it did not surprise me, as he has displayed similar qualities in his negotiations with Russia.
If you support this deal, fine; if you don't like Israel or the Saudis, that's your business; but know that many people and governments around the world think that Obama has made a very bad bargain.
If you support this deal, fine; if you don't like Israel or the Saudis, that's your business; but know that many people and governments around the world think that Obama has made a very bad bargain.
7
How many? You cited one article.
1
Just because a few French politicians are not happy, that doesn't mean 'many people and governments around the world think that Obama has made a very bad bargain.'
1
"Wall Street Journal noting strong French opposition to the agreement and dismay at Obama's inept bargaining and general naivete."
May be you should read the news more often, the French signed off on the deal and just this week the French Foreign Minister was in Iran. Does that look like they don't agree?
May be you should read the news more often, the French signed off on the deal and just this week the French Foreign Minister was in Iran. Does that look like they don't agree?
6
There are only three options: a military strike; the U.S. continuing the sanctions or some sort of a deal. If the Israelis or the U.S. attack Iranian nuclear sites, that might put the nuclear program back two-to-five years. Our five partners have already signaled that, if there is no deal, they would discontinue the sanctions and start trading with Iran. Unilateral sanctions on the part of the U.S. would merely shift trade to our partners.
Iran had stopped its nuclear program during the negotiations; however, without a deal, they would re-start it. Also, it was reportedly only a few months away from bomb-making capability. The deal on the table, however, would put Iran's nuclear program back ten-to-fifteen years
Yes, all of the options have flaws; but, the current Agreement is the best of several bad choices.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Iran had stopped its nuclear program during the negotiations; however, without a deal, they would re-start it. Also, it was reportedly only a few months away from bomb-making capability. The deal on the table, however, would put Iran's nuclear program back ten-to-fifteen years
Yes, all of the options have flaws; but, the current Agreement is the best of several bad choices.
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
The opponents of the Iran deal have no idea about the realities. If the deal is not ratified, Iran will continue to enrich uranium, and will probably increase the number of centrifuges. The sanctions which have not in fact brought the Iranians to their knees will shortly begin to crumble. The young, educated, pro-Western Iranians will be disillusioned, probably resulting in a prolongation of the dreadful theocracy of the ayatollahs. Finally, the military option will not work, as senior US experts have said, and quite frankly is insanity.
69
And among the people of Moses ( Jews) is a community which guides by truth and by it establishes justice. Al Quran (Chapter 7, verse 159 ). It looks to me that Roger Cohen and others who want to resolve nuclear dispute with Iran peacefully belong to that community.
4
I am no enemy of Israel. Indeed, I was in the country for half of the Six-Day War in 1967.
That said, it is important to note that, over the years, the U.S. has given Israel $130 billion--and this to a well-developed, modern, affluent country on a par with the U.S. itself...money that could have been spent on our sagging infrastructure back home. So what did we get for our money?
Nothing but a hailstorm of opposition to even our most practical and logical proposals....proposals that will, in the long run, serve Israel well. Going forward, we would do well to reconsider how we scatter our bucks. It ain't winning us many friends in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem!
That said, it is important to note that, over the years, the U.S. has given Israel $130 billion--and this to a well-developed, modern, affluent country on a par with the U.S. itself...money that could have been spent on our sagging infrastructure back home. So what did we get for our money?
Nothing but a hailstorm of opposition to even our most practical and logical proposals....proposals that will, in the long run, serve Israel well. Going forward, we would do well to reconsider how we scatter our bucks. It ain't winning us many friends in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem!
12
Finally, some common sense over American support of Israel!
I have been hearing Republicans in Congress (including Boehner) making ridiculous statements as "the President should not have made a deal without our approval" (my paraphrasing). This implies that all or part of Congress should be sitting at the negotiating table with Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
Our President is supposed to get a hall pass to interact with global leaders from Congress? Our do nothing except mouth off Congress? They are finally too stupid and out-of-touch to see the ridiculousness they create and the shame and discredit they bring to our country (think closing the government which resulted in lowering our credit worthiness).
Our President is supposed to get a hall pass to interact with global leaders from Congress? Our do nothing except mouth off Congress? They are finally too stupid and out-of-touch to see the ridiculousness they create and the shame and discredit they bring to our country (think closing the government which resulted in lowering our credit worthiness).
4
i'll see your liberal Jewish congressman's party line support for this insidious capitulation and raise you one liberal Jewish intellectual who has the sense (integrity) to speak truth to power and call the deal what it is - naive in intent and malignant in likely outcome. See Leon Wieseltier in the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-deal-histo...
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-deal-histo...
2
What is at stake here is not how soon Iran might get a bomb. When and if they get one, they will join India, Pakistan, Israel and some others. The deeper issue is whether we can work out a better modus vivendi with the Persians. Given that they are the sworn enemies -for many centuries - of the Sunni Jihadists - one can only hope that some meeting of the minds is possible.
4
I'm a Roger Cohen fan.
I particularly liked his column at the end of March when he said straight up..."Do the Iran Deal."
Roger maintains that after the deal is done Iran is likely to remain an enemy for the foreseeable future. I don't think that you can look at the 5,000 plus year history of the Persian people and predict that as necessary conclusion. Especially if we follow Roger's advice from his March 30 piece of nurturing the hope of a youthful society.
There seem to be two schools of thought in conflict on how to deal with enemies/adversaries. The Netanyahu School holds that if you have your foot on somebody's neck, keep it there. The Obama School holds that when the purpose of putting your foot on someone's neck has been achieved take it off.
After World War I we put our foot on Germany's neck at Versailles. After World War II we punished the worst of the worst at Nuremberg and then moved towards normalized relations very quickly. Right know, we don't have a better friend than Germany.
Right around the time Roger wrote his "Do the Iran Deal" column, Mr. Netanyahu had an opportunity for what I would call a "Mandela Moment".
He could have announced a "no opposition" position and started the process of back channel conversations with the Iranian leadership.
That would clearly be beyond Mr. Netanyahu's capacity. His enemies keep him important. Where would he be without them?
http://www.wednesdayswars.com
I particularly liked his column at the end of March when he said straight up..."Do the Iran Deal."
Roger maintains that after the deal is done Iran is likely to remain an enemy for the foreseeable future. I don't think that you can look at the 5,000 plus year history of the Persian people and predict that as necessary conclusion. Especially if we follow Roger's advice from his March 30 piece of nurturing the hope of a youthful society.
There seem to be two schools of thought in conflict on how to deal with enemies/adversaries. The Netanyahu School holds that if you have your foot on somebody's neck, keep it there. The Obama School holds that when the purpose of putting your foot on someone's neck has been achieved take it off.
After World War I we put our foot on Germany's neck at Versailles. After World War II we punished the worst of the worst at Nuremberg and then moved towards normalized relations very quickly. Right know, we don't have a better friend than Germany.
Right around the time Roger wrote his "Do the Iran Deal" column, Mr. Netanyahu had an opportunity for what I would call a "Mandela Moment".
He could have announced a "no opposition" position and started the process of back channel conversations with the Iranian leadership.
That would clearly be beyond Mr. Netanyahu's capacity. His enemies keep him important. Where would he be without them?
http://www.wednesdayswars.com
113
This is an insightful and well articulated column.
In addition to reading "The Deal", Congress should also be required to watch the recent PBS documentary called "The Bomb" (see: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365530722/ ) which explores the history of the development of nuclear weapons and ensuing policies related to their use, related crises, and the armament/disarmament policies of the US and other governments.
The film provides interesting and provocative looks at the politics of nuclear weaponry -- especially illustrating how irrational politically inspired posturing and positioning create grave and dangerous situations (and, conversely, how calm and measured decision process defuse the same). This is particularly appropriate for the present time -- which calls for decreased rhetoric and increased use of the gray cheese between political ears.
In addition to reading "The Deal", Congress should also be required to watch the recent PBS documentary called "The Bomb" (see: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365530722/ ) which explores the history of the development of nuclear weapons and ensuing policies related to their use, related crises, and the armament/disarmament policies of the US and other governments.
The film provides interesting and provocative looks at the politics of nuclear weaponry -- especially illustrating how irrational politically inspired posturing and positioning create grave and dangerous situations (and, conversely, how calm and measured decision process defuse the same). This is particularly appropriate for the present time -- which calls for decreased rhetoric and increased use of the gray cheese between political ears.
1
There is a never ending attempt surrounding the new pact with Iran to have wishful thinking create reality.
The wishful thinking: That Iran will be our new best friend. That this new Iran our new peaceful Allie will march in lockstep with us and share our mutual goals in the region. The wishful thinking; that Iran will not ever build a bomb and suddenly abandon its hatred of Israel and all things Sunni.
What we know in the real world is that Iran worked for years to reach a point where it is the big stick in the Middle East. In The real world, they worked for years to develope the expertise and the facilities to make a bomb. With this agreement they do not even have to have a bomb to achieve their goals because in 15 years or less they can have a bomb within a month or two and the ballistic missiles to threaten America if they so choose.
Wishful thinking tells us that suddenly the United States can stop the arming of Hezbollah and Hamas. Whereas the real world knows we have never stopped Iran from sending weapons to its proxies for the last twenty or more years.
Wishful thinking may cause greater damage to the United States than the wishful thinkers could ever imagine.
The wishful thinking: That Iran will be our new best friend. That this new Iran our new peaceful Allie will march in lockstep with us and share our mutual goals in the region. The wishful thinking; that Iran will not ever build a bomb and suddenly abandon its hatred of Israel and all things Sunni.
What we know in the real world is that Iran worked for years to reach a point where it is the big stick in the Middle East. In The real world, they worked for years to develope the expertise and the facilities to make a bomb. With this agreement they do not even have to have a bomb to achieve their goals because in 15 years or less they can have a bomb within a month or two and the ballistic missiles to threaten America if they so choose.
Wishful thinking tells us that suddenly the United States can stop the arming of Hezbollah and Hamas. Whereas the real world knows we have never stopped Iran from sending weapons to its proxies for the last twenty or more years.
Wishful thinking may cause greater damage to the United States than the wishful thinkers could ever imagine.
8
So, what? War?
1
Wishful thinking is that we can get a better deal. Don't know how or what a better deal would look like but sure if Congress just doesn't approve the deal, we will get a better deal! Hah!
Why would Iran negotiate with the US again? Tomorrow the son of Tom Cotton could show up and wants an even better deal.
Why would Iran negotiate with the US again? Tomorrow the son of Tom Cotton could show up and wants an even better deal.
3
While you are preaching against the Shia Iranians, the Sunni Saudis already have access to a nuclear weapon from Pakistan. Now think back over the history of the last 70 years. How much aggression has Iran projected outside its borders, compared to the aggression of Saudi Wahhabis?
1
There is a very familiar sound to much of what we hear from those opposing the nuclear non proliferation treaty with Iran. “They are untrustworthy”, “they are supporting terrorists”, “they are arming our enemies”, “they are getting more out of the deal than we are”, etc. Why does it sound familiar? Because we heard it in 1972 and 1988 when Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan negotiated treaties with the U.S.S.R. to reduce the threat of nuclear war. As with Iran, the Soviets were greatly distrusted by the Western democracies. Moreover, the Soviets financed and armed an anti-American regime some 90 miles off our coast and were arming and financing numerous anti-American guerilla groups in Latin American and Africa. Further, they occupied and repressed the nations of Eastern Europe, including the eastern portion of Germany. And, among the concerns with those treaties were that, neither contained anything approaching the verification safeguards found in the Iran deal and called for us to be left with far fewer nuclear arms than the Soviets—the “Evil Empire” that supported vast numbers of tanks, bombers and troops. Yet, the Senate debates reflected respect for the experts and respect for the President’s role in shaping and in carrying out foreign policy, and stuck to the facts while avoiding partisan hyperbole. The results, of course, have given us huge peace dividends. Can such maturity return to the U.S. Congress?
108
We were unhappy when India developed the bomb. Now we are very happy that India can act as a counterweight to China. How did Iran become our enemy?
The simple answer to your question is NO.
1
It should be noted that the 1972 and 1988 agreements you refer to were negotiated by administrations that had proven their chops (or at least had long maintained rhetoric) against the Soviet Union. President Obama has not done the same and therefore hasn't provided comfort to hardliners that he has driven the best deal he could.
It was the right move for Nixon to go to China, but it is generally accepted that only the once staunch anti- Communist Nixon COULD go to China.
It was the right move for Nixon to go to China, but it is generally accepted that only the once staunch anti- Communist Nixon COULD go to China.
Nice article. The major flaw with the logic of the opponents of a deal with Iran is the fact that the majority of the people in Iran--except for the 10 to 15 percent base of the fundamentalists-- have a favorable or neutral view of the West. This is not the case in Sunni Arab countries. There is a likelihood that with further discrediting or isolation of the hard-liners in Tehran, the pragmatic and secular-oriented forces may be strengthened, provided the West does not forget about human rights violations in Iran.
5
“In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe.”
Sander A levin has about as much in common with the Doctrine spewing GOP right wing as you do with a Canteloupe.
They represent a touchstone for their ignorant and frightened and doctrine infused constituencies who long ago lost the capacity for nuanced reasoning.
And these pathetic excuses for political leaders are the laughing stock of our Allies!
And To our policy and ultimate detriment.
Sander A levin has about as much in common with the Doctrine spewing GOP right wing as you do with a Canteloupe.
They represent a touchstone for their ignorant and frightened and doctrine infused constituencies who long ago lost the capacity for nuanced reasoning.
And these pathetic excuses for political leaders are the laughing stock of our Allies!
And To our policy and ultimate detriment.
3
If Israel can have the Nuclear weapons (and more than hundred of them ) why shouldn't Iran ? After all what is good for the goose is good for the gander! Any way Iran is not interested in having a nuclear bomb and Iranians want to integrate their economy with the rest of the world, improve the lot of their people and bring stability to the region, I am a sunni and a Wahabi to some extent, but I believe that the extremist Wahabiat and Salfi thinking which Saudi Arabia exports to other countries with a large illiterate population, such as Pakistan is mainly responsible for the religious fantacism, terrorism and unstability in the ME. By contrast, Iran is more responsible, has long cultural traditions and is much more stable and a reasonable country. The US and other countries, in the first instance, had no moral and legal authority to freeze Iranian assets amounting to roughly 130 Billion dollars. These should be returned to Iran forthwith,deal or no deal. As far as Israel, it will remain a Pariah State in the Middle East and no body and no country in the region has recognized or will accept it , if not for its military superiority and American support.
2
With the Israeli bomb remaining an enigma , and Iran's nuclear ambitions having been so restrained by the deal as never to reach the threshold, the security narrative would certainly not be what the US' allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, would like to offer to the world in order to raise alarm.
1
I don't see India giving up its nukes pointed at Pakistan any time soon Professor Sharma. And what about that disputed Kashmir province that both India and Pakistan claim belongs to them? Has that thorny issue been resolved???
My husband grew up with Sandy Levin and family as neighbors. We have been so fortunate in Michigan to have Sandy as our rep for years (a blip when gerrymandering butted in.) Along with his brother, Carl, they have brought intelligence, insight, compassion and real life reason to their responsibilities. Sandy's in his 80's and still fighting the good fight. Props!
6
While Israel is an important friend, why should its right wing government dictate the best interests of the United States? Foreign policy is defined by how it meets national interests while also considering other national interests.
Sometimes, while difficult to do, taking a stand against misguided policies of the current Israeli government could be in the long term interests of the majority of Israelis and those of the United States.
Sometimes, while difficult to do, taking a stand against misguided policies of the current Israeli government could be in the long term interests of the majority of Israelis and those of the United States.
7
Congressman Levin is wise and prudent beyond the purveys of the squalid circus Congress has become. And thank you, Mr. Cohen, for calling the Saudis out. They have been facilitators, through their fundamentalism of the terrorists the rest of the world now deals with.
13
To 'But what have our “allies” done for the United States of late? ', add "supplied most of the terrorists who flew the planes into the twin towers on 9/11".
3
Unfortunately for America, it appears America WANTS a shiny, new war with Iran. And it doesn't help matters when a major US party (GOP) has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Likud.
5
While it's quite popular to condemn Saudi Arabia as a cynical, backward tyranny, the Saudis, unlike Mr. Obama, have a sense of the realities of Real Politik.
Very simply, the Saudis know, like all perceptive people know, that the inspections portion of the agreement is seriously flawed. While it might be more intrusive than most inspections regimes that is not good enough because the Iranians have demonstrated the skill and capacity of being especially clever liars. Very simply, while the US, Germany, China et al. determine whether inspections at a given site are permissible, the Iranians will move the material to another site.
This problem exists today because Israel allowed itself to be dissuaded from bombing Iran's sites when they were still in their nascent state.
The passage of this agreement will, no doubt, induce the Saudis to the get the bomb, and with their vast reserves of wealth, I am sure they can get it from their fellow Sunnis in Pakistan, which already has the bomb.
Very simply, the Saudis know, like all perceptive people know, that the inspections portion of the agreement is seriously flawed. While it might be more intrusive than most inspections regimes that is not good enough because the Iranians have demonstrated the skill and capacity of being especially clever liars. Very simply, while the US, Germany, China et al. determine whether inspections at a given site are permissible, the Iranians will move the material to another site.
This problem exists today because Israel allowed itself to be dissuaded from bombing Iran's sites when they were still in their nascent state.
The passage of this agreement will, no doubt, induce the Saudis to the get the bomb, and with their vast reserves of wealth, I am sure they can get it from their fellow Sunnis in Pakistan, which already has the bomb.
3
What to do? What to do? May I make a modest proposal: The Congress should reject the agreement; the President should veto the rejection; and the Congress should fail to override the veto.
Then, in 20 or so years, the historians can argue who was right: Congress or the President.
Then, in 20 or so years, the historians can argue who was right: Congress or the President.
2
Sounds a bit like the agreement itself. Imperfect at first, but a band-aid that'll hold back the germs until genuine healing sets in. POTUS gets the deal he wants, POTUS (PEOPLE Of The US) get the deal we need, and Congress saves fund...I mean...face.
1
My opinion is, we don't have any friends in the Middle East. We have countries that want something from us and play friendly to attain that.
8
Picturing the Middle East 40 years from now, when Iran doesn't have a nuke, and the use of petroleum products has gone the way of coal cellars in American homes.
What do the leaders there, who rule in part by spending their nationalized (or royal) profits, do when they can no longer afford to buy off their populations, and can no longer afford to bankroll the groups who keep a focus on Israel (and America in the background) as The Enemy?
Yet another reason to promote non-fossil energy sources.
What do the leaders there, who rule in part by spending their nationalized (or royal) profits, do when they can no longer afford to buy off their populations, and can no longer afford to bankroll the groups who keep a focus on Israel (and America in the background) as The Enemy?
Yet another reason to promote non-fossil energy sources.
2
Keep hope alive....keep....the doors to peace.....OPEN....not CLOSED..
When doors are closed...and ....walls...are dividing humans from understanding
then
Wars..evolve..
Keep the Doors OPEN...and ...eventually....trust will evolve...and ...
sanity will come through these open doors.
Perhaps...the 21st Century could experience a renaissance...which
heretofore has been repressed......
Never close the doors to peace.
When doors are closed...and ....walls...are dividing humans from understanding
then
Wars..evolve..
Keep the Doors OPEN...and ...eventually....trust will evolve...and ...
sanity will come through these open doors.
Perhaps...the 21st Century could experience a renaissance...which
heretofore has been repressed......
Never close the doors to peace.
1
The rabid attacks on the Iran nuclear agreement coming from the Republican candidates for president are cynical political fodders aimed entirely at firing up the Know-Nothing GOP base. Even Jeb (whose father knows better) weighed in with some mushy comment against the deal. What stands out the most about these Republicans, besides their lack of knowledge or interest in facts, is their utter lack of principle.
6
I mistrust Messrs. Obama and Kerry and those they’ve convinced that “the best way to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from advancing toward a nuclear weapon” is their solution, because they’d already convinced themselves that Iran was going to get a bomb at some point, regardless of what we did that was affordable.
In other words, they devised a premise to their argument that others regard as invalid, yet proceeded to make a global argument based on it, and act on it. Yet if the premise is invalid, the whole argument is invalid.
So, when Sander Levin, despite being a man commanding great respect on both sides of the aisle, agrees, I can only conclude that he has swallowed the premise – he’s too smart to buy the argument WITHOUT buying the premise. But he’s as wrong as the rest of them.
So, here’s the other side. We could have embargoed Iran and made it stick – it just would have been expensive and difficult in the teeth of Russia’s and China’s increasing desire to take positions opposed to the West’s. The sanctions were working and beggaring Iran, which was why THEY approached US: we should have doubled-down on them until they capitulated. Accepting that their development of a bomb is inevitable is the central mistake in this whole mess.
Maybe these are means Mr. Obama is unwilling to exploit to achieve an objective. I suspect another president will exploit them having different ideas of what is affordable; and perhaps be forced to even more draconian means.
In other words, they devised a premise to their argument that others regard as invalid, yet proceeded to make a global argument based on it, and act on it. Yet if the premise is invalid, the whole argument is invalid.
So, when Sander Levin, despite being a man commanding great respect on both sides of the aisle, agrees, I can only conclude that he has swallowed the premise – he’s too smart to buy the argument WITHOUT buying the premise. But he’s as wrong as the rest of them.
So, here’s the other side. We could have embargoed Iran and made it stick – it just would have been expensive and difficult in the teeth of Russia’s and China’s increasing desire to take positions opposed to the West’s. The sanctions were working and beggaring Iran, which was why THEY approached US: we should have doubled-down on them until they capitulated. Accepting that their development of a bomb is inevitable is the central mistake in this whole mess.
Maybe these are means Mr. Obama is unwilling to exploit to achieve an objective. I suspect another president will exploit them having different ideas of what is affordable; and perhaps be forced to even more draconian means.
2
If Cohen were honest he would take a serious look at the arguments against the agreement. The first of these arguments is that one does not reward Evil, and sanction it. Iran is the foremost terror state in the world whose leaders openly call for the destruction of Israel and of the United States. They have missiles which can reach Israel and are developing those which will be able to reach Europe and then the United States.
Cohen does not consider that it might be a mistake to sanction an Iranian nuclear program which in ten or at latest fifteen years produce not a few nuclear devices but an industry of them.
Cohen too does not consider that Iran is responsible for the Assad regime's murderous behavior and its remaining in power. It controls through Hizbollah Lebanon.
Most painfully he ignores the murder of American soldiers by Iranian supported groups, and the present drive of Iranian supported Shiite militias to take over parts of Iran.
That is one small part of what he ignores. The deal itself which has so many ridiculous features, including the now famous twenty- four day warning to Iran before it self- reports on any additional program it might have, is one which invites Iranian cheating.
I will not get into the whole business of red lines and the failure to do what the President promised- dismantle the program..
As for the cynical use Cohen makes of supporters of Israel he should know that in Israel itself there is wall-to-wall opposition to the agreement.
Cohen does not consider that it might be a mistake to sanction an Iranian nuclear program which in ten or at latest fifteen years produce not a few nuclear devices but an industry of them.
Cohen too does not consider that Iran is responsible for the Assad regime's murderous behavior and its remaining in power. It controls through Hizbollah Lebanon.
Most painfully he ignores the murder of American soldiers by Iranian supported groups, and the present drive of Iranian supported Shiite militias to take over parts of Iran.
That is one small part of what he ignores. The deal itself which has so many ridiculous features, including the now famous twenty- four day warning to Iran before it self- reports on any additional program it might have, is one which invites Iranian cheating.
I will not get into the whole business of red lines and the failure to do what the President promised- dismantle the program..
As for the cynical use Cohen makes of supporters of Israel he should know that in Israel itself there is wall-to-wall opposition to the agreement.
2
You must mean ... ''the present drive of Iranian supported Shiite militias to take over parts of" IRAQ (not Iran).........
And Mr. Freedman, what alternative has the opposition to the agreement offered, aside from an escalation of hostilities and war?
And Mr. Freedman, what alternative has the opposition to the agreement offered, aside from an escalation of hostilities and war?
3
"The first of these arguments is that one does not reward Evil, and sanction it." Unfortunately, the US has and continues to reward and sanction the evil that Israel has directed toward the Palestinians for decades. Hopefully, we will stop soon.
Israel already has "an industry" of nuclear bombs. Israel hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allows no inspections. Perhaps Israel should rid itself of its nuclear weapons and submit to verified inspections to prove it is no threat to its neighbors.
The neocons lied the US into the Iraq War with the same type of language we hear against the Iran agreement today. Bibi was outspoken in his support of the US invasion of Iraq. He testified before US Congressional hearings leading up to the invasion, "“If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region… The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region.” He and the neocons were right only that the war did transform the Middle East into the disaster it is today. Americans suffered thousands of casualties and we will be paying for the Iraq War for generations to come. How many casualties did the Israelis suffer in the Iraq War?
Why should the US fight another disastrous war in the Middle East, which is the only other option to even slow Iran's development of a nuclear bomb? No thanks.
Israel already has "an industry" of nuclear bombs. Israel hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and allows no inspections. Perhaps Israel should rid itself of its nuclear weapons and submit to verified inspections to prove it is no threat to its neighbors.
The neocons lied the US into the Iraq War with the same type of language we hear against the Iran agreement today. Bibi was outspoken in his support of the US invasion of Iraq. He testified before US Congressional hearings leading up to the invasion, "“If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region… The task and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform the region.” He and the neocons were right only that the war did transform the Middle East into the disaster it is today. Americans suffered thousands of casualties and we will be paying for the Iraq War for generations to come. How many casualties did the Israelis suffer in the Iraq War?
Why should the US fight another disastrous war in the Middle East, which is the only other option to even slow Iran's development of a nuclear bomb? No thanks.
4
Note that Britain took until 1914 to pay off all the loans for the Napoleonic wars ending in 1815 at Waterloo....for the bankers another war arriving seemed like manna from heaven....to send a generation under ground....like lambs to the slaughterhouse 5?
1
The confusion between Allies and Protectorate is deliberate. Let's be more clear here, Allies can help us if we need them, Protectorates cannot even help themselves.
1
Let's not forget it is Iran's own money we are talking about letting or not letting them have.
How would we respond to, say, China freezing our assets until we dismantle our own arsenal?
How would we respond to, say, China freezing our assets until we dismantle our own arsenal?
6
AllI see is political posturing to eventually blame those criticizing the deal for the incredible shortcomings within the deal which will guarantee a nuclear armed Iran.
Yes, the deal is seriously flawed, loaded with liberal pretensions, but it's the conservative's fault if Iran gets the bomb.
What chutzpah!
Yes, the deal is seriously flawed, loaded with liberal pretensions, but it's the conservative's fault if Iran gets the bomb.
What chutzpah!
2
Who wants to send their children to war with Iran? Anyone? That is the only alternative. Let Israel and the Saudis go to war as allies, when hell freezes over.
9
The debate seems to break down into whether one believes a prostrate Iran can continue ad infinitum, and if that should be our goal. Their official spokesmen (from the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad days) certainly preached fire and brimstone. He is gone. The "death to America" marches are gone.
The notion of Iran as an Islamic monolith is completely false. It is historically a pluralistic society with high levels of education. I felt much safer there than I ever have in Saudi. And they don't need foreigners to do their work.
This is a no-brainer. Pretend we have some ability to continue an economic blockade after that cat left the bag, or move forward.
The notion of Iran as an Islamic monolith is completely false. It is historically a pluralistic society with high levels of education. I felt much safer there than I ever have in Saudi. And they don't need foreigners to do their work.
This is a no-brainer. Pretend we have some ability to continue an economic blockade after that cat left the bag, or move forward.
3
I strongly support the Iran nuclear deal and have long believed that negotiation was the only strategy for reducing tensions between our countries. Everything else has failed, especially military intervention and strong arm threats. Thankful, Obama and Kerry have continued to pursue negotiation and have achieved the best deal they possibly could. Congress must put politics aside and vote to approve the deal, it is the smartest and safest deal for us and the middle east.
6
Let's recast this column to one sentence, "Can the Iranians be trusted?"
1
Yes
The Saudis are conducting a religious war, and have managed to maneuver us into helping them. They buy the legitimacy of their regime from Wahhabis by supporting Wahhabi proselytization in various other countries. But support for the house of Saud must be bought because it is not a central tenet of conservative Islam, but merely a tactical convenience.
The logical place for the State of Islam to be located is a post-house-of-Saud Arabia, and the Saudis know this. They are playing a very dangerous game, and we are helping them to our detriment, as is evidenced in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Arabia's problem when Mohammed came along was not foreign occupation but rather endless tribal warfare. The tribes and their areas are much bigger these days but the problem remains. Mohammed and Islam have failed, or perhaps not yet succeeded. The Sunnis and Shia have to reconcile, and we have to stop taking sides and instead push them in that direction.
The logical place for the State of Islam to be located is a post-house-of-Saud Arabia, and the Saudis know this. They are playing a very dangerous game, and we are helping them to our detriment, as is evidenced in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
Arabia's problem when Mohammed came along was not foreign occupation but rather endless tribal warfare. The tribes and their areas are much bigger these days but the problem remains. Mohammed and Islam have failed, or perhaps not yet succeeded. The Sunnis and Shia have to reconcile, and we have to stop taking sides and instead push them in that direction.
36
That might have been good advice to the Catholics and Protestants on the eve of the counterreformation. Never count on intelligent behavior from people who think they are doing god's will.
1
I am almost the same age Roger Cohen. Before I started school, I understood that there was a war in Korea. In kindergarten, I was issued dog tags. Even in high school, I recall "take cover" drills. In my last two years of high school, Vietnam was on the television. Through college, America was torn apart over the Vietnam war, as Americans tore apart the lives of people in three countries. I served in the military, but I had "a good war," in the British sense. One of my high school classmates, from the same homeroom, was killed in 'Nam. I was left with the feeling that early diplomacy was never tried.
When I thought that we might enjoy peace, there was Grenada, Panama, hardly justified, then military intervention in the Balkans, with some justification.
Last year, I visited the grave of a neighbor's cousin, in Courville sur Mere, the American cemetery near Omaha Beach. It is a beautiful, sobering, and terrible place with the graves on 9,000 Americans.
Recently, I heard Sen. McConnell say that we cannot have any accord with the Iranians to which the Iranians agree, dismissing any diplomatic solution.
All I hear from the opponents of this agreement is bellicosity. and I have had my full of war, as did my late father, a WWI combat vet. War in the Middle East has proved disastrous to America and to the people of the Middle East. This agreement is far from the fantasy of many in Congress, but it is a realistic approach to engage Iranians, in many spheres.
When I thought that we might enjoy peace, there was Grenada, Panama, hardly justified, then military intervention in the Balkans, with some justification.
Last year, I visited the grave of a neighbor's cousin, in Courville sur Mere, the American cemetery near Omaha Beach. It is a beautiful, sobering, and terrible place with the graves on 9,000 Americans.
Recently, I heard Sen. McConnell say that we cannot have any accord with the Iranians to which the Iranians agree, dismissing any diplomatic solution.
All I hear from the opponents of this agreement is bellicosity. and I have had my full of war, as did my late father, a WWI combat vet. War in the Middle East has proved disastrous to America and to the people of the Middle East. This agreement is far from the fantasy of many in Congress, but it is a realistic approach to engage Iranians, in many spheres.
31
Roger: Since you are such an expert on all things Iranian -- and Israeli -- (just look at how you predicted the brutal democracy crackdown in Iran which occurred while you were there blaming Israel for unwarranted paranoia just days before, not to mention how successfully you called it that the Arab Spring would turn out a wonderful change for the Middle East) can you tell us what the side deals are between Iran and the IAEA -- especially the one that apparently includes that Iran will supply any soil samples requested, and no American investigators are allowed to participate? I don't know the details, and apparently the Congress wasn't informed of them either. Nor Israel which does have a dog in this fight, which even you I'm sure would admit. And Kerry says he hasn't the details, but he says he did get a summary from the IAEA.
Also being such an expert (a maven as they say in some quarters) can you also please explain once and for all what hordes of Iranians actually mean when they shout in mass street demonstrations "Death to America; Death to Israel" -- even during the closing days of the negotiations for this deal you like so much -- and what they really mean when their top officials describe Israel as a "cancer that must be eradicated". Considering the fact that Israel is a nation of about 6 million Jews, how do you pull this off without killing another 6 million Jews? Maybe there's a handy uneventful way I haven't thought of. Please help oh, wise sage.
Also being such an expert (a maven as they say in some quarters) can you also please explain once and for all what hordes of Iranians actually mean when they shout in mass street demonstrations "Death to America; Death to Israel" -- even during the closing days of the negotiations for this deal you like so much -- and what they really mean when their top officials describe Israel as a "cancer that must be eradicated". Considering the fact that Israel is a nation of about 6 million Jews, how do you pull this off without killing another 6 million Jews? Maybe there's a handy uneventful way I haven't thought of. Please help oh, wise sage.
12
Does anyone really think Iran is suicidal and that they will risk the incineration annihilation of their people and society?
JUST ONE U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine carries 24 × Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 MIRVed W76 or W88 (300–475 ktTNT) nuclear warheads each, range 6,100 nmi (11,300 km; 7,000 mi)
So that's 288 warheads with burst temperatures over 50,000° - From an Indian Ocean launch to detonation over Iran approximately 12 minutes.. And we have 24 of the submarines. And 10,000 other warheads deliverable via other platforms.
JUST ONE U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarine carries 24 × Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 MIRVed W76 or W88 (300–475 ktTNT) nuclear warheads each, range 6,100 nmi (11,300 km; 7,000 mi)
So that's 288 warheads with burst temperatures over 50,000° - From an Indian Ocean launch to detonation over Iran approximately 12 minutes.. And we have 24 of the submarines. And 10,000 other warheads deliverable via other platforms.
2
JW, how is "Death to America, Death to Israel" any different than the vile and hate filled venom spewed an a daily basis by the right wing against Iran any different?
2
All he is saying is that the deal is better--even for Israel--than the alternative. Opponents of the deal seem to ignore the intelligence estimates that say if the deal is rejected, the Iranians could race to breakout in a few months at most, and that that an all-out military strike at Iran (that would cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives) would not destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but merely set it back a few years. If we reject the deal, the Iranians will have no incentive to hold back, and could have the bomb by Thanksgiving. That helps Israel's survival how, exactly?
2
PEACE IN OUR TIME!
This is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
The US agrees to allow Iran to not comply with Iran’s obligations under the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
The US agrees to lift trade sanctions against Iran that were implemented against Iran for Iran’s failure to comply with Iran’s obligations that Iran agreed to comply with as a part of the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
The US agrees to allow Iran to have Nuclear Weapons ten years after this treaty is agreed and ratified by all of the governmental parties to this agreement!
There is now no need to worry about any future nuclear attacks on the USA by Iran until ten years from now!
This is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
The US agrees to allow Iran to not comply with Iran’s obligations under the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
The US agrees to lift trade sanctions against Iran that were implemented against Iran for Iran’s failure to comply with Iran’s obligations that Iran agreed to comply with as a part of the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
The US agrees to allow Iran to have Nuclear Weapons ten years after this treaty is agreed and ratified by all of the governmental parties to this agreement!
There is now no need to worry about any future nuclear attacks on the USA by Iran until ten years from now!
10
It doesn't violate the non-proliferation agreement (which Iran signed but Israel hasn't).
2
This is absolutely the kind of op-ed I have been waiting to read for some time. As always, Cohen delivers. Sometimes it's just astounding how Saudi money drowns all the horrific disasters Saudi Wahhabism injects to the world. This wonderful op-ed reminds me of Iranian officials scornful response to Saudi warning of launching its own Nuclear bomb program. The Iranians told the Saudis - but you are a backward nation; you have neither the educated manpower nor the technology to do anything. It was refreshing to watch the Iranians tell the Saudis what they really are - a backward nation with a lot of money, which it spends lavishly to export its poisonous ideology all over the world! Thank you so much Cohen, this is such a wonderful op-ed!
31
100 per cent agree.
In all their ranting, GOP forget that Iran is the only country with its own Jewish population, Small though but with their own member of parliament not a model of democracy but compare to all the other countries in their mist have been home for Jews for over that 2500 years since Cyrus the great.
So when all these GOP members start crying wolf someone should remind them of these facts and others and because a country as old as Iran is more than a regime that will rule it for a couple decades.
So when all these GOP members start crying wolf someone should remind them of these facts and others and because a country as old as Iran is more than a regime that will rule it for a couple decades.
22
Yes Jay, and the Jewish population in Iran, which was over 100,000 when the Shah was in power, is now down to maybe 15,000 to 20,000. Most of them voted with their feet and left the Islamic Republic of Iran a long time ago.
Its interesting that the Arab population of Israel within the "Green Line" has increased from 160,000 in 1949 to 1,4 million today, yet numerous posters on this board accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing". And the Jewish population of Iran drops by 80% under the rule of the mullahs but people like you make it sound like the mullahs should get kudos because the Jewish population is not yet zero.
Its interesting that the Arab population of Israel within the "Green Line" has increased from 160,000 in 1949 to 1,4 million today, yet numerous posters on this board accuse Israel of "ethnic cleansing". And the Jewish population of Iran drops by 80% under the rule of the mullahs but people like you make it sound like the mullahs should get kudos because the Jewish population is not yet zero.
So what? Even Syria has a very small Jewish population.
So what about the Yemenite Jews? They don't exist?
Contrast Levin with Cruz. Cruz' effort to block the deal is little more than debate team rhetorical traps.
10
I know the agreement will pass, that it will be lauded and applauded as a triumph of diplomacy - in the meantime Iran will regain vast assets that will cause chaos among the world, will keep oppressing its youth through revolutionary guard and the regime, with economy relief will entrench itself more in the country marginalizing minorities, woman and its non existent gay population. In the meantime Iran would be able to pursue nuclear research, keep its infrastructure and if not earlier build a nuke in 15 years with the international community stamp of approval - All because we wanted to believe in the fantasy of redeemed Iran regime, more than we wanted to see the truth of its oppressiveness, inward and outward aggression and our inability 6 years ago to support the Iranians and not their government when they wanted a change for the better. Now we have given the Iranian all they ever wanted international legitimacy and boatloads of cash for an agreement to which we are not even completely privy and their solemn promise that they will not pursue nuclear weapons for 15 years -a promise which we will in all seriousness if you read the agreement carefully - not even be able to verify.
Mr. Levin, may be voting his conscience, but with all the lobbying form both sides of the issue and the pressures carried by the white house we will never know -
I'd love to have seen no pressures, no lobbies -let people read and vote, but our system is also flawed.
Mr. Levin, may be voting his conscience, but with all the lobbying form both sides of the issue and the pressures carried by the white house we will never know -
I'd love to have seen no pressures, no lobbies -let people read and vote, but our system is also flawed.
3
Did you also feel the agreements with the USSR would lead to the same end? Stalling by the USSR, cheating, and ultimately a worse fate for us?
Really?
"boatloads of cash". From what?
This isn't built on a fantasy of the future. It is built on the reality of today.
Really?
"boatloads of cash". From what?
This isn't built on a fantasy of the future. It is built on the reality of today.
I find it amazing... although not surprising... that having praised Representative Levin for digging deeply into the facts and then saying what he believes Mr. Cohen then goes off on a tirade against Saudi Arabia which while true has nothing to do with the facts of the situation. So let's stick to the facts:
Fact 1 - The deal does contain all the things that Representative Levin finds to be positive.
Fact 2 - The deal contains a poison pill in that it has an expiration date which renders all the positives moot after 15 years
Fact 3 - By fecklessly taking the deal to the UN Security Council before allowing the US Congress to weigh in the Obama Administration knowingly created a situation in which rejecting the deal will result in a worse outcome than accepting the deal thereby putting a United States security issue into the hands of the UN instead of the hands of Congress
Those are the facts. Since rejecting the deal is now a non-starter the question now is how and what can we do to protect ourselves should the optimists be wrong.
Fact 1 - The deal does contain all the things that Representative Levin finds to be positive.
Fact 2 - The deal contains a poison pill in that it has an expiration date which renders all the positives moot after 15 years
Fact 3 - By fecklessly taking the deal to the UN Security Council before allowing the US Congress to weigh in the Obama Administration knowingly created a situation in which rejecting the deal will result in a worse outcome than accepting the deal thereby putting a United States security issue into the hands of the UN instead of the hands of Congress
Those are the facts. Since rejecting the deal is now a non-starter the question now is how and what can we do to protect ourselves should the optimists be wrong.
2
"Fact 2 - The deal contains a poison pill in that it has an expiration date which renders all the positives moot after 15 years."
So the deal ends at some point. So what? You can't have a deal that lasts forever. Even if you put it into the wording of the deal, as soon as someone gets elected/takes power who isn't interested in it, the deal goes away. In 15 years, we'll negotiate a new deal, if necessary - possibly in the same way this one was negotiated with sanctions being imposed to bring Iran to the table.
So the deal ends at some point. So what? You can't have a deal that lasts forever. Even if you put it into the wording of the deal, as soon as someone gets elected/takes power who isn't interested in it, the deal goes away. In 15 years, we'll negotiate a new deal, if necessary - possibly in the same way this one was negotiated with sanctions being imposed to bring Iran to the table.
"Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan and the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress, said something important this week . . . His words were important for two reasons."
Rep. Levin is the District next to mine. His brother was my Senator for decades. They were always a team. I know them well.
There is a third reason this is important, a reason more important than those other two.
The Levins were AIPAC in Congress. They just said "No" to AIPAC. That has never before happened on a matter of importance.
Rep. Levin is the District next to mine. His brother was my Senator for decades. They were always a team. I know them well.
There is a third reason this is important, a reason more important than those other two.
The Levins were AIPAC in Congress. They just said "No" to AIPAC. That has never before happened on a matter of importance.
25
"They (Levins) just said "No" to AIPAC. That has never before happened on a matter of importance."
So is it that the AIPACers have changed their spots or that they realize the deal is going ahead whether the US Congress approves it or not. The Israel buyout/demand from Israel is already on the table ie an extra $2 billion per yr of US tax payer money for starters. Congress will come up with more to keep the AIPAC funds coming.eg A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money &you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
So is it that the AIPACers have changed their spots or that they realize the deal is going ahead whether the US Congress approves it or not. The Israel buyout/demand from Israel is already on the table ie an extra $2 billion per yr of US tax payer money for starters. Congress will come up with more to keep the AIPAC funds coming.eg A 2014 NYT`s article quoted B.Baird a Dem. congressman: “The difficult reality is this: in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independently wealthy, you have to raise a lot of money &you learn pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side, you can do that.” It also quoted J. Yarmuth, a congressman from Kentucky, on upholding the interests of the United States: “We all took an oath of office & AIPAC is asking us to ignore it.”
12
Mark, he's been our rep for years, like, you Carl our Senator. We are proud of both their work, very fortunate to have had smart, insightful, hardworking and compassionate MI people in Congress. Sandy's doing amazing work still in his 80s.
1
Iran is a country which:
• stones to death women accused of adultery,
• hangs homosexuals,
• persecutes Baha'is,
• oppresses Kurds,
• abuses Sunni Muslims,
• funds Hezbollah,
• funds Hamas,
• supports Assad,
• brutally quashes political opposition,
• murders Jews in distant Argentina,
• and persistently calls for the annihilation of Israel.
Hiw can anyone trust Iran?
• stones to death women accused of adultery,
• hangs homosexuals,
• persecutes Baha'is,
• oppresses Kurds,
• abuses Sunni Muslims,
• funds Hezbollah,
• funds Hamas,
• supports Assad,
• brutally quashes political opposition,
• murders Jews in distant Argentina,
• and persistently calls for the annihilation of Israel.
Hiw can anyone trust Iran?
10
The questions are: 1) Are these policies of the current, increasingly shaky Iranian government reflective of the (amazingly pro-US and predominantly youthful) Iranian population as a whole? 2) Would reduction of the sanctions force the mullahs to choose between freeing up capital to rapidly improve the Iranian economy or apply it to foreign adventures the youthful Iranian population has no desire to pursue, thus risking collapse of their theocracy?
If the US congressional "hardliners" succeed in sabotaging this deal, I hope the mullahs send them Christmas cards.
If the US congressional "hardliners" succeed in sabotaging this deal, I hope the mullahs send them Christmas cards.
1
I believe you meant Saudi Arabia.
2
Let's look at this from the other angle, with a foreigner's eyes: America is a country, which:
• invades other countries under false pretense
• is in the business of meddling in other countries' governments (Cuba invasion, Iraq invasion, Chile, see Pinochet, Iran, see overthrow of Mosaddegh)
• tortures people in secret prisons around the world and in Guantanamo
• flies unmanned bombers over other countries
• has a political class where large parts think that widely acknowledged facts are a hoax (see: "climate change")
• arms its citizens to the teeth and does nothing to limit violence
• talks loudly about building fences, deporting undocumented immigrants
• has the largest prison population in the world
• and now: goes around the world to hunt animals for fun.
Would you trust such a country?
• invades other countries under false pretense
• is in the business of meddling in other countries' governments (Cuba invasion, Iraq invasion, Chile, see Pinochet, Iran, see overthrow of Mosaddegh)
• tortures people in secret prisons around the world and in Guantanamo
• flies unmanned bombers over other countries
• has a political class where large parts think that widely acknowledged facts are a hoax (see: "climate change")
• arms its citizens to the teeth and does nothing to limit violence
• talks loudly about building fences, deporting undocumented immigrants
• has the largest prison population in the world
• and now: goes around the world to hunt animals for fun.
Would you trust such a country?
37
I have viewed many of the Senate and House hearings on the Iran nuclear agreement, and have come away appalled by the inane and utterly false claims made by our elected officials who oppose the deal. Either they have not read the agreement (I have - it doesn't take that long), or have been willing to voice some pretty outrageous lies about it.
I am 73 years of age, a registered independent, and have voted in every election since my 21st birthday. I must say I have never been so disappointed by these Congressional creatures.
I am 73 years of age, a registered independent, and have voted in every election since my 21st birthday. I must say I have never been so disappointed by these Congressional creatures.
29
Roger,
IT seems more Congressmen are beginning to act "Rationally".
AS congressman, Dan Kildee, a Michigan Democrat who has become an outspoken advocate for the US prisoner, Amir Hekmati, and other Americans held or missing in Iran, said that "he had informed President Obama of his decision on Wednesday night"
“For me, once I know where I am, there’s no sense in prolonging the question,” Mr. Kildee said. “I do think it’s important that we evaluate the agreement on its own merits, and the case of the Americans is a consideration but shouldn’t be determinative.”
Mr. Kildee said that "based on his own reading of the agreement, putting aside the prisoner question, he had concluded that it was important to approve it".
If the agreement fails, he said, “the fate of these Americans becomes far less certain.” At the same time, he added, “I don’t come to the conclusion that I support the agreement because of that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/world/middleeast/congressman-for-iran-...
IT seems more Congressmen are beginning to act "Rationally".
AS congressman, Dan Kildee, a Michigan Democrat who has become an outspoken advocate for the US prisoner, Amir Hekmati, and other Americans held or missing in Iran, said that "he had informed President Obama of his decision on Wednesday night"
“For me, once I know where I am, there’s no sense in prolonging the question,” Mr. Kildee said. “I do think it’s important that we evaluate the agreement on its own merits, and the case of the Americans is a consideration but shouldn’t be determinative.”
Mr. Kildee said that "based on his own reading of the agreement, putting aside the prisoner question, he had concluded that it was important to approve it".
If the agreement fails, he said, “the fate of these Americans becomes far less certain.” At the same time, he added, “I don’t come to the conclusion that I support the agreement because of that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/world/middleeast/congressman-for-iran-...
3
I wholeheartedly support and applaud Senator Levin. The same goes for all people throughout the world and within Israel who seek realistic paths to winding down the tragedy that is the Middle East. At the same time I'm thoroughly ashamed of the behavior of the ill-advised and ignorant members of both US congressional houses who refuse to make a serious effort to understand the deal and seek only to exploit it for perceived political advantage among their constituents.
16
It needs to also be mentioned that invasive inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities will continue for 25 years and if Iran were to cheat or kick out the IAEA inspectors, the "snap back" provision would again implement devastating economic sanctions against Iran. This is a solid verifiable plan that will prevent Iran from developing a nuke for years and isn't that not only the national interests of the U.S., Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK but most of all in the interests of Israel, a nation with two hundred deliverable nukes? Natanyahu should thank the Obama administration for eliminating what he describes as an Iranian existential threat to Israel and for ensuring that Israel will remain the most powerful and only nuclear state in the Mideast.
12
One area neglected or where denial reigns are the position of Russia and China. Both these countries have a national interest in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Russia borders Iran. Under Putin they are flexing their nuclear power as a global power. A nuclear Iran would weaken this claim and divert resources to deal with the threat. It would benefit economically and in nuclear knowledge from the deal.Perhaps they would not like the sanctions to be too effective because we are sanctioning them on the Ukraine. They could perhaps control Iran by invading them.Nonetheless,they would have trouble controlling Iran on their own. The Chinese are somewhat different. In their case they probably tolerated DPRK going nuclear because they felt they could control them:invade or economic pressure as they border the DPRK. Also they could provide a nuclear umbrella for DPRK They probable miscalculated here so would be more careful with Iran. Also their experience with Pakistan would give them pause. Their nuclear position would be undermined by a nuclear Iran. They benefit economically from the deal.I am sure these countries would try to manipulate things but their are limits to these tactics.
Their is another lesson from the framework agreement with DPRK. We meet our obligations almost in the breach because a newly elected and energized Republican Congress refused to appropriate funds to pay for the bunker fuel. Clinton used special DOD funds for first payment.Trust?
Their is another lesson from the framework agreement with DPRK. We meet our obligations almost in the breach because a newly elected and energized Republican Congress refused to appropriate funds to pay for the bunker fuel. Clinton used special DOD funds for first payment.Trust?
3
One reason why the Republicans hate the Iran agreement is because for the past 6 1/2 years the bunch of crackers in the Senate and House have devoted themselves to making sure that Obama would not have a successful presidency. The Iran agreement would be a tremendous achievement for a president who has already had some very notable successes. For the Republicans Iran is just the other side of the coin from the Affordable Care Act.
47
Well reasoned column, but the main issue wasn't mentioned. Opposition to the negotiations with Iran arise from the GOP's hatred (yes, hatred) for the President. If such a deal had been negotiated by any other Administration, it would be welcomed as promising and a breakthrough. But because it's Obama, they will throw out inane, sophomoric comments, which is their raison d'être.
There once was a time when political opponents were informed, judicious patriots dedicated to protecting America's long range interests. Not, sadly, any more.
There once was a time when political opponents were informed, judicious patriots dedicated to protecting America's long range interests. Not, sadly, any more.
33
It is time for Schumer to run for office in Israel Go Chuck go!
19
The sulky children that they are, Congress and Israel just see the Iran Deal only as an American-Iran Deal. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they refuse to understand is that this Deal has been signed off by five other countries - Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia. If we renegade on this Deal then the other five countries would have no qualms to lift sanctions on their own. That is a recipe for disaster because Iran would not be burdened by sanctions (only from us !! ) and they will race to get the bomb. We will find ourselves to be a lion declawed, whimpering. This is not the BEST Deal but it is definitely not the worst either.
24
The five nations that signed on were never threatened by Iran leadership to "wipe them off the face of the earth."
Israel is threatened so on a daily basis.
Israel has everything lose.
America (which Iran leaders always call "The Great Satan") would be next.
Israel is threatened so on a daily basis.
Israel has everything lose.
America (which Iran leaders always call "The Great Satan") would be next.
Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.
But I fear we are so deeply mired in the middle East with our politicians who don't have the education in other cultures and try to win elections with slogans. Case in point: First the US conspires with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other golf monarchies to train fighters in Jordan to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Then we find out that the Sunni warriors are mostly enamoured with a hardline, mind numbing form of Islam that wants world domination. So now we bomb the ISIS/Al Qaeda people that Turkey and Saudi Arabia send over there. Who planned this? Who in the White House takes responsibility for this amateur act?
So now we want to still get Assad out of the office and we are fighting the people that are on the ground finishing off the Syrian regime. Insane!
You can only pull this of in this country with Media who don't allow any thought more complex than necessary to buy the soap they advertise in the commercial break.
But I fear we are so deeply mired in the middle East with our politicians who don't have the education in other cultures and try to win elections with slogans. Case in point: First the US conspires with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and other golf monarchies to train fighters in Jordan to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. Then we find out that the Sunni warriors are mostly enamoured with a hardline, mind numbing form of Islam that wants world domination. So now we bomb the ISIS/Al Qaeda people that Turkey and Saudi Arabia send over there. Who planned this? Who in the White House takes responsibility for this amateur act?
So now we want to still get Assad out of the office and we are fighting the people that are on the ground finishing off the Syrian regime. Insane!
You can only pull this of in this country with Media who don't allow any thought more complex than necessary to buy the soap they advertise in the commercial break.
13
How do you really know there was an actual deal made with the governmental representatives of the country of Iran? How would you really know the so called deal was actually legitimate?
2
I read it in all the newspapers, heard it on all the broadcast networks (even Fox). What's your source, if any?
1
Saudis have to be dealt with sooner or later. They have spread their Wahabi ideology throughout the Islamic world. There has not been one Shia suicide bomber, The Shias have been drawn into the chaos of Middle East they have not been responsible for it. The thinking that the Iranian Government wants to wipe out Israelis off the face of the earth is a propaganda by the Israelis and successfully sold to the western press. In my opinion it will be a tragedy if this deal is rejected.
23
As the public discovers more about the events leading up to, and following, the '911 attack' (when do we get to read the 'top secret redacted' 28 pages?) the Saudis are going to look less and less like friends of the average American citizen. Oil-rich families like Jeb Bush's have a different perspective, of course, but their interpretation is different because their goals are different: preservation of their wealth. These people have a vested interest in supporting the Saudi government and, therefore, opposing any agreement with Iran the Saudi government doesn't like. What benefits these people is not necessarily what benefits 99% of Americans and as a result their opinion should not count much in evaluating the agreement with Iran.
Politicians, think-tank 'foundation' operatives, talk-show hosts, shock journalists, academics and the like who make their living churning out propaganda supporting the goals of American oligarchs like the Koch brothers and the Bush family will say whatever the boss wants them to say. Likewise, their statements should mostly be ignored when thinking about an agreement that will shape the direction of relations between the United States and Iran for the next decades.
Sander Levin's conclusions, as reported by Mr. Cohen, are a much more reliable basis for evaluation of this historic agreement than either of the two alternatives described above.
Politicians, think-tank 'foundation' operatives, talk-show hosts, shock journalists, academics and the like who make their living churning out propaganda supporting the goals of American oligarchs like the Koch brothers and the Bush family will say whatever the boss wants them to say. Likewise, their statements should mostly be ignored when thinking about an agreement that will shape the direction of relations between the United States and Iran for the next decades.
Sander Levin's conclusions, as reported by Mr. Cohen, are a much more reliable basis for evaluation of this historic agreement than either of the two alternatives described above.
20
I don't understand why you focus on Saudi opposition to the deal with Iran, and not so much on Israeli and Zionist opposition to the deal, Mr. Cohen.
The Saudis, regardless of their hostility to the deal, are not intensely lobbying the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. media, to scuttle the deal.
The Saudis are not stupid. They will eventually figure out, if they have not already done so, that the Shia of Iran pose a much smaller, if any, threat to them, than do the Sunni of ISIS.
The Saudis, regardless of their hostility to the deal, are not intensely lobbying the U.S. Congress, or the U.S. media, to scuttle the deal.
The Saudis are not stupid. They will eventually figure out, if they have not already done so, that the Shia of Iran pose a much smaller, if any, threat to them, than do the Sunni of ISIS.
16
You mean the people they funded and now this is blowing up in their face?
1
In 2003, we invaded Iraq, a country of 26 million people, who were largely not our enemies. Even the most hostile of Iraqi leadership posed no insurmountable threat to us. We turned most Iraqis into our enemies. If we were Iraqis, how would we feel about the United States?
In 2015, we have a chance to not make war with Iran, a country of 78 million people, three times the population of the Iraq we invaded, people who are largely not our enemies, whose leaders, even those most hostile to us, cannot harm us, and pose no credible threat to Israel. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran disappears. No Irani, leader or otherwise, believes otherwise.
If we age war on Iran, what possible reason does anyone have that such a war will produce results any better than those we achieved in Iraq? I challenge any one opposed to the P5+1/Iran deal to produce one shred of evidence that a war against Iran could possibly make either the U.S. or Israel safer.
The opposition to the Iran deal have nothing, absolutely nothing, to argue with on their side. Except fear. Except "oven doors." Except their craven desire to have their opportunist political aspirations funded, regardless of the cost to and consequences for the people they claim they want to lead and to protect.
We have nothing to fear from the Iran deal. We have everything to fear from those opposed to the deal. From our "allies" abroad. From our "allies" at home.
In 2015, we have a chance to not make war with Iran, a country of 78 million people, three times the population of the Iraq we invaded, people who are largely not our enemies, whose leaders, even those most hostile to us, cannot harm us, and pose no credible threat to Israel. If Iran attacks Israel, Iran disappears. No Irani, leader or otherwise, believes otherwise.
If we age war on Iran, what possible reason does anyone have that such a war will produce results any better than those we achieved in Iraq? I challenge any one opposed to the P5+1/Iran deal to produce one shred of evidence that a war against Iran could possibly make either the U.S. or Israel safer.
The opposition to the Iran deal have nothing, absolutely nothing, to argue with on their side. Except fear. Except "oven doors." Except their craven desire to have their opportunist political aspirations funded, regardless of the cost to and consequences for the people they claim they want to lead and to protect.
We have nothing to fear from the Iran deal. We have everything to fear from those opposed to the deal. From our "allies" abroad. From our "allies" at home.
87
Obviously you do not fear Iraq obtaining nuclear weapons, because that is what this deal validates. Why should Iraq ever obtain nuclear weapons?
Why should any country ever obtain nuclear weapons?
It’s not just about Israel.
To judge and know the Iranian intentions one must know Arabic.
Listen what their media propagandizes in Arabic about America ("The Great Satan"), the militancy of their leaders and in their educational system, the daily barrage of antisemitism.
While we make nuclear deals Iran continues to develop ICBMs.
Why would Iran need ICBMs since Israel is just 1000 miles away?
You need them for the U.S. about 7000 miles away.
They are called "Intercontinental" because they can be launched at other continents (like the U.S.).
We were worried about the more limited ICRM missiles from Cuba just 90 miles away from us.
And they weren't ICBMs.
The deal Obama said is "a sure bet" does not cover ICBM development.
Obama is betting the lives of us and our families.
Netanyahu said on NBC's “Meet the Press,” “I’m not trying to kill any deal; I’m trying to kill a bad deal."
Betting American lives that Iran will not deceive us is indeed is a very bad deal.
The Iran issue will go down into history as the launching pad of a new genre of literature, punditship, columnistship and, possibly, scholarship.The gist of which is the almost miraculous metamorphosis of a totally factual war mongering ,power and hegemony seeking, expansionist, colonialist Israeli cause into an American universal peace seeking and brotherly regional cohabitation issue for the USA, for the Judo/Christian alliance and for all major Western media ,
Israel cleverly managed to hide its real ,genuine regional hegemony seeking , military supremacy and expansionist/colonialist Israeli cause into an American cause with great Western , some universal but major media success as attested to by this Cohen article.
Atomic A bomb owning, constantly developing ( both weapons and conveyance means) and supreme regional military power seeking and brandishing Israel, of decades long standing, turned out to make the of USA the chamion of the anti atomic weaponry and nuclear know how of the region!
A falacious cause soon adopted as official USA policy and strategic outlook criterion when confronting a nuclear know how seeking Iran suspected, only suspected, of harbouring nuclear power ambitions.
Never in human annals was a Z so successfully metamorphosed into an A!
Israel cleverly managed to hide its real ,genuine regional hegemony seeking , military supremacy and expansionist/colonialist Israeli cause into an American cause with great Western , some universal but major media success as attested to by this Cohen article.
Atomic A bomb owning, constantly developing ( both weapons and conveyance means) and supreme regional military power seeking and brandishing Israel, of decades long standing, turned out to make the of USA the chamion of the anti atomic weaponry and nuclear know how of the region!
A falacious cause soon adopted as official USA policy and strategic outlook criterion when confronting a nuclear know how seeking Iran suspected, only suspected, of harbouring nuclear power ambitions.
Never in human annals was a Z so successfully metamorphosed into an A!
10
You left out the fact that Israel has never started a war.
3
To David D:
1967: Golda Meir: "We started it," meaning the military assaults.
1978: Lebanon, with PLO as target
1982: Lebanon, with PLO as target
2006: Lebanon, once more, this time with Hezbollah as target
2006: Gaza
2014: Gaza
1982 to 2000: Military occupation of southern Lebanon
Not included were the air strikes in Iraq on their Osiris reactor, and the bombardment on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. While applauded by many, these were, nevertheless, acts of war.
Also, there were the repeated air space violations in Syria that resulted in literally dozens of Syria aircraft shot down during the 70's and early 80's.
The Israeli message has been consistent: Irritate or provoke us and we will attack and even invade and occupy you. I am not aware of one single notable diplomatic effort that was ever initiated by the Israeli government with any of its neighbors - when they occurred, as with Egypt and Jordan, it was the US that dragged Israel into it, kicking and screaming all the way, and that includes every failed Palestinian peace attempt.
1967: Golda Meir: "We started it," meaning the military assaults.
1978: Lebanon, with PLO as target
1982: Lebanon, with PLO as target
2006: Lebanon, once more, this time with Hezbollah as target
2006: Gaza
2014: Gaza
1982 to 2000: Military occupation of southern Lebanon
Not included were the air strikes in Iraq on their Osiris reactor, and the bombardment on a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. While applauded by many, these were, nevertheless, acts of war.
Also, there were the repeated air space violations in Syria that resulted in literally dozens of Syria aircraft shot down during the 70's and early 80's.
The Israeli message has been consistent: Irritate or provoke us and we will attack and even invade and occupy you. I am not aware of one single notable diplomatic effort that was ever initiated by the Israeli government with any of its neighbors - when they occurred, as with Egypt and Jordan, it was the US that dragged Israel into it, kicking and screaming all the way, and that includes every failed Palestinian peace attempt.
16
@DonD, your post is complete and total nonsense. Every single date you mention was Israel responding to Arab attacks, whether conventional military threats or terrorism.
Congressman Sanders Levin is acting as a wise and true friend of Israel.
Congressman Levin is also acting as a wise and true friend of Jewish Americans.
Finally, Congressman Levin is acting as a wise and true Representative of all American.
All things that the GOP, AIPAC, Adelson, Likud and Netanyahu are absolutely not doing.
All true friends, particularly those in the Congress and the Senate, of Americans, of Jewish Americans, of Israel, of peace itself, would do well to listen to Congressman Levin's reasoning.
Congressman Levin is also acting as a wise and true friend of Jewish Americans.
Finally, Congressman Levin is acting as a wise and true Representative of all American.
All things that the GOP, AIPAC, Adelson, Likud and Netanyahu are absolutely not doing.
All true friends, particularly those in the Congress and the Senate, of Americans, of Jewish Americans, of Israel, of peace itself, would do well to listen to Congressman Levin's reasoning.
28
I hope that President Obama, when he is invited to Tehran by the Ayatollah, will take along all the Jewish Congressmen who end up voting for this deal. What a picture that would make! The President, the Ayatollah and all their loyal subjects.
5
Yeah, and they could stop off at the Bitburg Cemetery, just like your President Reagan, and pay their respects to those 49 SS troops buried there. Or maybe they'll simply reserve that honor all to Reagan. What's your take and do you have a picture of the ceremony, which unlike your hypothetical musings, actually took place?
9
President Reagan took a bad turn that day, there is no disputing that. But placing a nuclear cloud over Israel is in a category all by itself.
4
I, too, hope that Obama will go and bring along all the Jewish congressmen with him. It would be a good day for sanity, sensibility and security in the Middle East as well as advancing American interests in the face of determined opposition from an Israeli government that poses a greater existential threat to Israel than anyone ever might have imagined. It will be a good day for the world, even if it's a bad day for Netanyahu and his Republican sycophants.
7
Congressmen should read James Fallows lineup of who is for the deal, who is against the deal, and what the track record of those individuals is on assessing threats:
"The Real Test of the Iran Deal" by James Fallows, The Atlantic, 29 July.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate...
Nearly all of the people against the Iran deal are the same people who told us that invading Iraq was a good idea, and/or are telling us that the Iraq War has made us safer.
"The Real Test of the Iran Deal" by James Fallows, The Atlantic, 29 July.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the-iran-debate...
Nearly all of the people against the Iran deal are the same people who told us that invading Iraq was a good idea, and/or are telling us that the Iraq War has made us safer.
39
There's a point that was made by the Economist last week, that needs to be repeated. Israel main concern now is not a hostile Iran, but a friendly one. Imagine a world many years from now, where the US and Iran have good relations and many US companies are actively involved in Iran with large investments. There's even growing tourism to a country with miles of beaches, pretty decent skiing, and huge cultural and historical relevance. Don't you think Iran at that point would have more influence on US policy? This is the main concern of the Israeli and Saudi governments. They would much rather have a hostile Iran (even with nukes that they know Iran would never use) than a friendly one.
320
Before America meddled in Iranian politics, leading to the present revolutionary Islamist regime that uses Jew hatred (and hatred of the U.S.A.) to cover its own faults, Israel had a reasonably peaceful relationship with Iran, not unlike it's relation with Turkey before the current Islamist ruler soured it for the sake of his own internal political power.
At the rate Iran is going, it will use the bulk of its new-found wealth to spread hatred and death throughout the world. But due to their total focus on spreading radical Shiite Islam, Iran is likely to ignore their growing water crisis until their population leaves or dies. Maybe then the corrupt government will all escape to rich countries and Iran can become friendly again, if it is not too late to prevent all out war.
At the rate Iran is going, it will use the bulk of its new-found wealth to spread hatred and death throughout the world. But due to their total focus on spreading radical Shiite Islam, Iran is likely to ignore their growing water crisis until their population leaves or dies. Maybe then the corrupt government will all escape to rich countries and Iran can become friendly again, if it is not too late to prevent all out war.
1
Your assertion that Iran would never use its nukes assumes that the Iranian regime, which has continued its practice of hostage taking, is composed of rational persons. Do you think that Iran's savage behaviour is rational?
BTW can you explain why Iran wants nuclear wepons?
BTW can you explain why Iran wants nuclear wepons?
1
All too true. Back to the Shah's Iran where Johnson said give them anything but nucs. Where Israel used its contacts to facilitate the Iran contra agreement with the US and to maintain Iranian F-4s.
1
Well said, Mr. Cohen. Now we need our government and those associated with it in the Iran agreement to pursue a nuclear-free Middle East with the same energy that they devoted to the negotiations with the Islamic Republic.
5
A nuclear-free Middle East would entail getting Israel to comply. Fat chance of that!
12
Absolutely agree.
The US has to push Israel to disclose its nuclear sites and allow inspections.
You cannot continue to tolerate Israeli Nuclear Arsenals while telling neighboring Middle Eastern countries that they are forbidden to have them, develop them or acquire them.
The USA should not be a country of double standards.
and where is the UN, and the UK?
FP
The US has to push Israel to disclose its nuclear sites and allow inspections.
You cannot continue to tolerate Israeli Nuclear Arsenals while telling neighboring Middle Eastern countries that they are forbidden to have them, develop them or acquire them.
The USA should not be a country of double standards.
and where is the UN, and the UK?
FP
Yes. Mr. Cohen has very intelligently used the words "ineradicable Iranian nuclear know-how." These are truly the operative words in this nuclear weapons debate. Iran knows how to build a bomb; the agreement commits them not to do so.
Prime Minister Netanyahyu has always been free to negotiate a supposedly better deal with Iran. But the Israeli ability to negotiate does not appear to be one of their strengths. I am still trying to figure out why they can't get the Chinese on their side. How could the Chinese be Anti-Semites?
The nations, especially the US, are doing a good deed for both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Neither country knows how to keep the fuse unlit. This gives them both an opportunity to see what they can do to reduce the chaos and violence in their part of the world.
Prime Minister Netanyahyu has always been free to negotiate a supposedly better deal with Iran. But the Israeli ability to negotiate does not appear to be one of their strengths. I am still trying to figure out why they can't get the Chinese on their side. How could the Chinese be Anti-Semites?
The nations, especially the US, are doing a good deed for both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Neither country knows how to keep the fuse unlit. This gives them both an opportunity to see what they can do to reduce the chaos and violence in their part of the world.
19
The Chinese are only interested in obtaining oil from Iran. They have no interest in anything other than acting in their own self interest. If Iran used nuclear weapons on another country do you seriously believe that the Chinese would care?
Let me put it another way: Prime Minsiter Netanyahu criticizing someone else's negotiations is rather like Mike Tyson criticizing the boxing style of Muhammad Ali.
Perhaps he can follow the lead of the Republicans who, when asked about climate change now reply "I am not a scientist but...." PM Netanyahu could say "Well, I am not a negotiator but...."
Perhaps he can follow the lead of the Republicans who, when asked about climate change now reply "I am not a scientist but...." PM Netanyahu could say "Well, I am not a negotiator but...."
5
David, you are soooooo serious.
But okay, I DO think the Chinese would care. They are a bunch of atheists; they don't think the classless utopia can occur anywhere else than on this earth. So I would look at what the Chinese do, not only on nuclear war but on climate change as well. If the Chinese take steps to prevent climate change that might be one of the best arguments in favor of the science.
But okay, I DO think the Chinese would care. They are a bunch of atheists; they don't think the classless utopia can occur anywhere else than on this earth. So I would look at what the Chinese do, not only on nuclear war but on climate change as well. If the Chinese take steps to prevent climate change that might be one of the best arguments in favor of the science.
I once got a very nice watch in a pawnshop by offering all the money I had in my wallet for it,
which happened that day to be $11. Since that time, I have made it a practice never to carry more than $11. in my wallet. I daresay that Congressman Levin and Mr. Cohen do not frequent pawnshops. But the Ayatollah does.
which happened that day to be $11. Since that time, I have made it a practice never to carry more than $11. in my wallet. I daresay that Congressman Levin and Mr. Cohen do not frequent pawnshops. But the Ayatollah does.
17
I was on my way to work one day, and, on a whim, I turned West. Since that day, I turn west all the time.
I tell that [meaningless] story because it makes as much sense as what you wrote.
What are you talking about, Stanton? Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand what you are saying. If you have something to say, enough so to write something, maybe you should tell us what you are talking about.
I tell that [meaningless] story because it makes as much sense as what you wrote.
What are you talking about, Stanton? Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand what you are saying. If you have something to say, enough so to write something, maybe you should tell us what you are talking about.
14
What does this even mean?
13
Well, Eller, you and I are just not intelligent enough to understand what Stanton (if that's even his real name) wrote. I think he's either opposed to something or in favor of something. Maybe it's pawn shops, but who knows? He's way too clever for me.
11
I don't understand Republican argument. How does forcing Iran to give up their nuclear bomb making materials make it more likely that they will get nuclear bomb?
That's like saying taking a gun away from a shooter will make them more likely to shoot people. With what? You took away their gun. They can't, by definition, shoot someone when they no longer have a gun. But wait, there's more. Not only do you think that having a gun will make it less likely to shoot, but you are going to be giving them more ammunition over time. So not only will they have a gun, but you will be providing them bullets too. That's basically the most likely thing to happen. Without this deal, they will have a gun. And as economic sanctions sunset, they will have a gun and bullets.
Of course, this is similar thinking that, in the wake of a shooting, what we need more of is MORE guns and MORE shooters, because, of course, that is safer than having no guns where nobody can shoot.
Somehow Republicans are deluding themselves. I just don't understand it. If they don't have a gun, they can't shoot anyone. Period. How is that hard to understand?
That's like saying taking a gun away from a shooter will make them more likely to shoot people. With what? You took away their gun. They can't, by definition, shoot someone when they no longer have a gun. But wait, there's more. Not only do you think that having a gun will make it less likely to shoot, but you are going to be giving them more ammunition over time. So not only will they have a gun, but you will be providing them bullets too. That's basically the most likely thing to happen. Without this deal, they will have a gun. And as economic sanctions sunset, they will have a gun and bullets.
Of course, this is similar thinking that, in the wake of a shooting, what we need more of is MORE guns and MORE shooters, because, of course, that is safer than having no guns where nobody can shoot.
Somehow Republicans are deluding themselves. I just don't understand it. If they don't have a gun, they can't shoot anyone. Period. How is that hard to understand?
17
This would require them to read the accord. That is asking too much.
1
There is a place in Hell for the fire-and-brimstone preacher turned politician turned Fox News commentator turned Presidential candidate who would use the Holocaust as fodder for pandering to them whom he perceives as his electorate. As was once said to Joseph McCarthy, "Have you NO shame, sir?"
30
The extent to which the Saudi's are friends of the United States is besides the point. What's important is that they don't trust the Iranians with respect to this deal. It doesn't take someone who reflects on a situation before speaking about it to recognize that something is amiss when the Saudi's oppose a deal which is supposed to give them a 10 to 15 year respite from risk of nuclear war or nuclear blackmail from Iran. The Saudi's live in the region. We don't. They know Iran a lot better than we do. Something doesn't compute. Mr. Cohen should address this specific point rather than walking around Saudi discomfort - by discussing peripheral matters.
1
The Saudis are fundamentalist Sunnis; the Iranians (or their government, at least) are fundamentalist Shi'ites. Those factions have been at war for something more than 1500 years now. Sort of like the Catholics and Protestants after the Reformation. Only longer lasting.
6
Tom,
Thank you for explaining the difference here, but origin of the enmity is irrelevant to the question of why the Saudi's mistrust this deal. If the deal genuinely afforded protection from Iranian nuclear ambitions wouldn't the Saudi's welcome it? The fact that they do not welcome this deal suggests that the Saudi's, who know their Iranian enemy better than we do, feel the deal is deeply flawed and will not achieve its goals.
Thank you for explaining the difference here, but origin of the enmity is irrelevant to the question of why the Saudi's mistrust this deal. If the deal genuinely afforded protection from Iranian nuclear ambitions wouldn't the Saudi's welcome it? The fact that they do not welcome this deal suggests that the Saudi's, who know their Iranian enemy better than we do, feel the deal is deeply flawed and will not achieve its goals.
1
We made deals with the USSR and China. We didn't trust them either. The deal is not based on trust, but on the most intrusive verification regime possible. Can they cheat, sure. But they could have cheated years ago, and didn't. Most importantly, since the start of this negotiation, Iran was held to very specific measures regarding their nuclear program, and they have lived up to the letter of that agreement. Could it be that the Saudis are afraid of a burgeoning Iranian relationship with the US, coupled with our growing energy independence, making the House of Saud, sad?
5
They don't make poliicans like Sander Levin, and his brother Carl who recently retired from the Senate. They do their best for their country and constituents rather than always thinking about the next elections.
21
I am Jewish and yet I write to urge Congress to approve the Iran treaty. Certainly I am concerned about Israel's survival. I have cousins living there so that issue is personal. However, the worst thing you can do with a wild animal is to back ir into a corner. If it can not escape, it will have no alternative but to bite you. The same principle applies here.
Many do not know that before we entered WWII we imposed sanctions so strict on Japan that it felt it had no alternative but to attack us. This was certainly not a part of what I was taught in U.S. History in High School, but it is true. As it is said, if you refuse to study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
The question is not whether the deal is the best one we could imagine but whether it is a step forward. I think it is.
Would it be nice if Iran were willing to sign a comprehensive peace treaty that recognized Israel's right to exist? Sure it would. I have no doubt that our initial bargaining position is not what was accepted. I'm equally sure that the deal was not Iran's first offer either. Criticizing the deal makes a good campaign sound bite, but do you really believe that our bargaining team and our allies at the table did not make a good faith effort to come away with the best deal they could?
If we sign the deal, can bad things happen in 10 or 15 years? Yes, they can, but bad things are happening now. The deal reduces the possibility of nuclear war and should be approved.
Many do not know that before we entered WWII we imposed sanctions so strict on Japan that it felt it had no alternative but to attack us. This was certainly not a part of what I was taught in U.S. History in High School, but it is true. As it is said, if you refuse to study history, you are doomed to repeat it.
The question is not whether the deal is the best one we could imagine but whether it is a step forward. I think it is.
Would it be nice if Iran were willing to sign a comprehensive peace treaty that recognized Israel's right to exist? Sure it would. I have no doubt that our initial bargaining position is not what was accepted. I'm equally sure that the deal was not Iran's first offer either. Criticizing the deal makes a good campaign sound bite, but do you really believe that our bargaining team and our allies at the table did not make a good faith effort to come away with the best deal they could?
If we sign the deal, can bad things happen in 10 or 15 years? Yes, they can, but bad things are happening now. The deal reduces the possibility of nuclear war and should be approved.
23
Iran is not a wild animal and the only nation that is a threat to use nuclear weapons in the region is israel.
7
Care to back up your "wild" comment with some evidence?
We have engaged with Cuba and begun the path of resolving many lingering issues, so I would agree with the Honorable Mr. Levin and I appreciate Mr. Cohen's presentation of the facts on foreign policy dilemma of Iran. The Ayatollah's may an unmovable force but the people of Iran may want explore the future more and leave a 1979 darkly clouded period of their history. Do I trust the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia? No, But I do trust and in believe in dialogue and diplomatic engagement.
9
Mr. Cohen--your 3rd from last paragraph hit it right on the head. We have treated SA as a friend under the theory that the enemy of my enemy (IRAN) is my friend. If I had to bet on the youth of one country over the other, I'd bet on Iran's youth. Iran has a long and vibrant history except of the past 35 dark years. As to SA, not so much.
12
Thank you for bringing some sanity into the discussion. However there are many important facts that never get mentioned. For example, the Iranian nuclear program was started by the Americans in the mid 70 in what was called Atoms for Peace. The idea was to free up more Iranian oil for export by reducing the amount of oil used for domestic electricity production, even more relevant today.
Another fact kept hush is that Iran does NOT want a nuclear bomb. According to the late and current Ayatollah, the indiscriminate nature of the bomb makes it impermissible for use in war under Islamic Law. Most of Iran's actions in the last 20 years point to purely civilian nuclear ambition. During the Iran - Iraq war, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran over 20 times. Yet Iran, which had a chemical weapon stockpile of its own, never retaliated in kind; because of the indiscriminate, thus unIslamic, nature of the weapon. Iran lost thousands of soldiers and civilians to these American made chemical weapons but held to its moral beliefs.
Iran is at the forefront of fighting terrorism. They supported the Northern Alliance in fighting the Taliban, contained a lQaeda and is now the most effective force, through militias, of killing ISIS terrorists.
The nay-sayers should read a some recent history, of events that happened in our lifetimes, before buying everything Bibi Netanyahu is peddling. As a Republican, am ashamed of my party for being so ignorant and war happy.
Another fact kept hush is that Iran does NOT want a nuclear bomb. According to the late and current Ayatollah, the indiscriminate nature of the bomb makes it impermissible for use in war under Islamic Law. Most of Iran's actions in the last 20 years point to purely civilian nuclear ambition. During the Iran - Iraq war, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran over 20 times. Yet Iran, which had a chemical weapon stockpile of its own, never retaliated in kind; because of the indiscriminate, thus unIslamic, nature of the weapon. Iran lost thousands of soldiers and civilians to these American made chemical weapons but held to its moral beliefs.
Iran is at the forefront of fighting terrorism. They supported the Northern Alliance in fighting the Taliban, contained a lQaeda and is now the most effective force, through militias, of killing ISIS terrorists.
The nay-sayers should read a some recent history, of events that happened in our lifetimes, before buying everything Bibi Netanyahu is peddling. As a Republican, am ashamed of my party for being so ignorant and war happy.
32
"According to the late and current Ayatollah, the indiscriminate nature of the bomb makes it impermissible for use in war under Islamic Law."
"Iran is at the forefront of fighting terrorism".
Huh? I must get my eyes checked because I can't believe you actually wrote these words. Do you mean allowing its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to reign inaccurate crude rockets on Israeli citizens is permitted by Islamic law??
Do you not know that Iran is the undisputed largest state sponsor of terrorism in THE WORLD??
"Iran is at the forefront of fighting terrorism".
Huh? I must get my eyes checked because I can't believe you actually wrote these words. Do you mean allowing its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas to reign inaccurate crude rockets on Israeli citizens is permitted by Islamic law??
Do you not know that Iran is the undisputed largest state sponsor of terrorism in THE WORLD??
1
Thank you for putting "Allies" in quotes. Every pair of countries has some shared agenda and some opposing agenda. The only ally in the Mid-East with whom we have a Senate-ratified mutual defense treaty is NATO-member Turkey.
15
Excellent points to which, as an American of Jewish background, I would add from my religious heritage celebrating freedom from bondage and fear the following four questions:
(1) Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons in a few months?
(2) Do you want a permanent end to the sanctions regime with no chance it can "snap back"?
(3) Do you want the U.S. to become isolated diplomatically in the international community?
(4) Do want a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with the chance that ISIS could get the bomb?
No sane person would answer "Yes" to any of these never mind all of them, but that is exactly what will happen if Congress rejects the nuclear "deal" with Iran. Saudi Arabia has already announced that it will develop a nuclear weapon if Iran does and rejecting the deal means Iran will likely have nuclear weapons by the end of this year. Meanwhile the other major world powers that negotiated and approved the deal with Iran (Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia) will lift the sanctions forever. So, if you really want to celebrate Jewish liberation from an Egyptian-like tyrannical regime rather than a Holocaust-like annihilation through incineration, you should approve this deal as I and most Jewish-Americans, like Congressman Levin, do.
(1) Do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons in a few months?
(2) Do you want a permanent end to the sanctions regime with no chance it can "snap back"?
(3) Do you want the U.S. to become isolated diplomatically in the international community?
(4) Do want a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with the chance that ISIS could get the bomb?
No sane person would answer "Yes" to any of these never mind all of them, but that is exactly what will happen if Congress rejects the nuclear "deal" with Iran. Saudi Arabia has already announced that it will develop a nuclear weapon if Iran does and rejecting the deal means Iran will likely have nuclear weapons by the end of this year. Meanwhile the other major world powers that negotiated and approved the deal with Iran (Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia) will lift the sanctions forever. So, if you really want to celebrate Jewish liberation from an Egyptian-like tyrannical regime rather than a Holocaust-like annihilation through incineration, you should approve this deal as I and most Jewish-Americans, like Congressman Levin, do.
32
I am very uncomfortable with elected officials who are personally torn between their loyalty to Israel and the United States. They were elected by the citizens in the districts or states they represent, not by the people of Israel. I am even more uncomfortable with Chuck Schummer being placed in any leadership position in the U.S. Senate.
69
What is the Iranian “code of Bushido?”
Before the Pearl Harbor debacle that began World War II for America did nobody in U.S. intelligence know the proud heritage and code of “Bushido” of the Japanese Samurai warrior?
Bushido called for sneak attacks and in the Japanese tradition this was something to be proud of.
That knowledge would have put us on the alert at Pearl Harbor.
Does anybody in U.S. intelligence community understand the Arab mindset?
Don't lose sight of Iran's missile development program.
I suppose Iran leaders who have called the U.S. "The Great Satan" have no designs on America.
What is the Iranian “code of Bushido?”
Will it be similar to the Harikari ending of the Japanese who choose to commit suicide rather than to be dishonored?
Be afraid.
Be very much afraid.
Let's go to the concluding paragraph:
"Any deep dig into the facts, of Levin’s courageous kind, cannot escape the question of whether a deal with an enemy, Iran, so fiercely opposed by this particular ally, Saudi Arabia, might not, over time, change the Middle Eastern equation in ways favorable to the American national interest."
I think Roger's correct that a "deep dig.....cannot escape the question...". But it's upon answering that question that the honest, informed evaluator "cannot escape" the reality that a terrorist-sponsoring, annihilationist-swearing, brutally repressive sovereign criminal enterprise should not be permitted to shimmy down the North Korean path. Starve them into submission, or bomb them into oblivion (or both). In the end, it won't just be better for the world, it'll mostly benefit the ordinary Iranian citizen.
"Any deep dig into the facts, of Levin’s courageous kind, cannot escape the question of whether a deal with an enemy, Iran, so fiercely opposed by this particular ally, Saudi Arabia, might not, over time, change the Middle Eastern equation in ways favorable to the American national interest."
I think Roger's correct that a "deep dig.....cannot escape the question...". But it's upon answering that question that the honest, informed evaluator "cannot escape" the reality that a terrorist-sponsoring, annihilationist-swearing, brutally repressive sovereign criminal enterprise should not be permitted to shimmy down the North Korean path. Starve them into submission, or bomb them into oblivion (or both). In the end, it won't just be better for the world, it'll mostly benefit the ordinary Iranian citizen.
2
In what way is the "ordinary Iranian citizen" benefited by being "starved into submission" or "bombed into oblivion" or both?
8
Well, as iran is none of those things, all of what you said is irrelevant to this discussion, isn't it?
Simple: the end game is the downfall of the regime. This is what betters the lot of the ordinary Iranian citizen.
The only consequence for politicians voting no is the next election. In the coming presidential primary campaigns, insist every Republican and Democrat candidate reveal his/her personal opinion on the Iran deal. Did (would) you vote to disapprove the Negotiated plan? If so, explain your better solution?
Then, everyone sit back and let history reveal which approach ,among imperfect choices ,was the best. It won't take very long. Rejection or approval has serious risks for us all . Unless the entire congress votes to override there are no consequences for those who are protected from personal political harm by an absolutely certain presidential veto.
In that case, when the multi-trillion dollar American-Iranian War ,guaranteed by the Republican and Democrat override of Obama's veto , begins remember the voice vote in the next election.
Then, everyone sit back and let history reveal which approach ,among imperfect choices ,was the best. It won't take very long. Rejection or approval has serious risks for us all . Unless the entire congress votes to override there are no consequences for those who are protected from personal political harm by an absolutely certain presidential veto.
In that case, when the multi-trillion dollar American-Iranian War ,guaranteed by the Republican and Democrat override of Obama's veto , begins remember the voice vote in the next election.
2
My father was in the habit of buying winter clothes on the hottest day of the summer, figuring that the prices would be lower that day and that he would have more room to bargain.
Had President Obama been willing -- like my father -- to wait for the right time to do his shopping, in this case by passing the ball a few years down the road to the next administration, thus allowing the sanctions pressure on the Ayatollah enough time to work its magic, the final deal would have been measurably better than the one that is being forced down our throats now.
As it is, the President needed a legacy and got it and so did we and Israel, smack in the face.
Had President Obama been willing -- like my father -- to wait for the right time to do his shopping, in this case by passing the ball a few years down the road to the next administration, thus allowing the sanctions pressure on the Ayatollah enough time to work its magic, the final deal would have been measurably better than the one that is being forced down our throats now.
As it is, the President needed a legacy and got it and so did we and Israel, smack in the face.
9
No one knows what day the hottest day of the summer is or will be until the summer is over. Your father only knew that it was hot. Similarly, no one knows when the best day is or will be to strike a deal with Iran without the benefit of hindsight. We can only know when the opportunity to strike a deal arises, i.e. when the pieces are in place (a moderate negotiating partner, pressure from economic sanctions, etc.) to strike a good deal. Those who know the situation well have concluded that this was in fact a good time to reach an agreement with Iran. I hope those experts prove to be correct. I, for one, did not like the alternatives.
11
Ignoring the facts Stanton. The Europeans and Russia were not interested in extending sanctions much longer. They are loosing billions in trade. A few years ? For sure the Iranians would have had a weapon by then. The President didn't do this out of a need for a legacy. He saw the facts and reality of the situation and made the best deal, with our allies, that could be made.
13
The "wait for the right time to do his shopping" argument espoused here and by many opposing the deal is ridiculous and the American public should be insulted by it. It is illegitimate as it is based upon two thesis that are factually inaccurate, as follows: 1) the sanctions will remain in place, forcing the Iranian's to compromise further. It is well known that the sanctions coalition will not hold any longer, as Russia and China are anxious to trade with Iran and support Iran, and all of the P5 members feel that the current deal is reasonable, and that the US will be unreasonable if the deal is not concluded; and 2) a better deal can be had in the future with another US administration. If Bush 43 had taken the deal with Iran that was available at the time - pre-current sanctions - a better deal would already be in place.
Hopefully, the US Congress can, for a brief moment, put aside their irrational, partisan behavior - including ridiculous straw men like this argument - and give their overwhelming approval for the deal. The future with Iran will still most-likely be difficult, but this is the best choice now for a better future.
Hopefully, the US Congress can, for a brief moment, put aside their irrational, partisan behavior - including ridiculous straw men like this argument - and give their overwhelming approval for the deal. The future with Iran will still most-likely be difficult, but this is the best choice now for a better future.
14
“In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe.”
What a novel ideal! Actually study the agreement before you comment! Someone should pass it along to the GOP and Netanyahu.
What a novel ideal! Actually study the agreement before you comment! Someone should pass it along to the GOP and Netanyahu.
24
Wouldn't that be a wonderful idea. The only problem is as has been shown, they are secret agreements that Congress is not privy to. So now what?
As far as the Iranian nuclear agreement goes, the relevant questions are: Should Israel's national interests be above those of America's? Does the agreement strengthen or undermine US national security? Who comes first, America or Israel?
36
The basis of this article is tragic. The notion that a jewish member of congress (or any other member of congress) would even think about putting Israel's interests above America's is sickening and such people have no business being legislators. The fact that Levin supports the Iran deal despite being a "friend" of Israel means that he is simply doing his job, and does not merit some sort of accolade. Congress serves America and American citizens only. Regardless of your view of Israel, the fact remains that it is a foreign country, and should never, ever trump the interests of our country. Israel is not special. It is simply one country among all the rest in the world that we interact with, and should therefore get no special treatment whatsoever. It would be unpatriotic, if not treasonous, to put the interests of Israel (or any other country) above our own.
21
The basis for this article reeks of the residue of odor from anti-Semitism.
Jews have always been the most exemplary citizens of the nations they belong to.
Loving Israel is no less than the Irishman or Puerto Rican who love their ancestral land.
The one Jew cited in this article is one Jew out of 14 million in the world.
Try speaking to a cross-sampling of Jews to get a better opinion as to where many Jews may stand.
Excellent op/ed piece, Mr. Cohen. With friends like the Saudis it's possible to prefer dealing with enemies. It's also worth pointing out that, unlike the (more or less) democratically elected government of Iran the repressive Saudi monarchy doesn't allow for anything resembling freedom of worship. No tolerance exists for Jews or for Christians and even Shiites are officially harassed. People like Mike Huckabee who are so adamant about defending Israelis from the Persian hordes might want to stand up in support of his fellow Christians from time to time considering how poorly they're treated elsewhere in the Middle East.
30
Bringing the civilized population of Iran into the light disadvantages the hardliners. This is likely to be better for all than encouraging the ideological purists on both sides. This kind of purity is one of humanity's greatest threats, an adolescent view that results in genocide for all, and since perfection is neither human nor humane.
22
Absolutely right. The fact devoid assault on the treaty by Republicans and Netanyahu is an embarrassment to the US voters. Or the transportation bill war between the Republicans cry out how unready the Republicans are to hold power. Seymour Hersh's piece on the killing of bin Laden certainly shows that the Saudi's are a much more threatening power to the US than Iran. The Saudi's activities with ISIS and in Yemen show them to have a murderous rage against the Shiites. The puzzling thing to me though, is the Obama Administration and Hilary Clinton's diatribes on how perfidious Iran is. It sort of undercuts the treaty but one can see that Obama is not confident enough about the treaty to not join in their own Iran bashing.
8
In my opinion leadership is not to do what is popular, but what it is hard, it is to take risks, in the process of achieving a brighter and better outcome. Gather your facts, and take a leap of faith. The easy path is to follow the "conventional wisdom" and pander to the same beaten and ineffective path. Representative Sander M. Levin is exercising true leadership.
This is a profile in courage, considering that our little David, Israel, now a true Goliath, doesn't want it, and God have mercy on anybody that disagrees with them...
This is a profile in courage, considering that our little David, Israel, now a true Goliath, doesn't want it, and God have mercy on anybody that disagrees with them...
22
Isn't it odd how those ranting against the Iran deal are ignoring what they so often invoke as the magic of the market, how commerce brings out the best in us all? Shouldn't commerce be able to defeat the Iranian hardliners just as it did those Commies in Russia and China? Shouldn't it bring us all together in the gloriousness of getting rich? Who cares if Iran gets The Bomb as long as it cares more for money than mass graves? What happened to that mantra of the right in this discussion?
16
Republicans don't believe in the reality of the free market any more than they believe in democracy. Both carry risks of competition that do not guarantee them the power they crave.
They prefer a corporate/monopolistic economic system that insures the dominance of already entrenched industries and industrialists to a real marketplace where a new idea or product might displace the old. (Think alternative energy vs. big oil.)
As far as democracy goes they prefer to rig elections, suppress votes, and when those don't work, to absolutely obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. There is nothing American about the current version of the republican party.
They prefer a corporate/monopolistic economic system that insures the dominance of already entrenched industries and industrialists to a real marketplace where a new idea or product might displace the old. (Think alternative energy vs. big oil.)
As far as democracy goes they prefer to rig elections, suppress votes, and when those don't work, to absolutely obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. There is nothing American about the current version of the republican party.
2
The constant drumbeat of the slick television commercials that inundate our airwaves is another instance of people trying to take control of a real issue in a negative way.
Lindsay Graham is one of those peddling the fairy tale of "kill this deal" now and leave it to the next president, who won't take office until 2007. Graham says that president would have "real power" to negotiate a much better deal. That's a fairy tale. Between now and then, Iran would have no reason at all not to ramp up its nuclear program.
We have right wing extremist members of Congress allying themselves with the Iranian radical fringe.
We've missed this bus so many times. Making bad policy is followed by making more bad policy.
The deal deserve a careful reading and support instead of blind opposition. Facts are inconvenient, so they're ignored.
Lindsay Graham is one of those peddling the fairy tale of "kill this deal" now and leave it to the next president, who won't take office until 2007. Graham says that president would have "real power" to negotiate a much better deal. That's a fairy tale. Between now and then, Iran would have no reason at all not to ramp up its nuclear program.
We have right wing extremist members of Congress allying themselves with the Iranian radical fringe.
We've missed this bus so many times. Making bad policy is followed by making more bad policy.
The deal deserve a careful reading and support instead of blind opposition. Facts are inconvenient, so they're ignored.
15
Without this deal, the sanctions stop from all but the US. Iran is less than 2 months from enriching enough of its already highly enriched Uranium to bomb grade. Without this deal, Iran will have the option to be a nuclear power before the next president arrives--certainly enough to have a "dirty bomb". Iran has stopped its enrichment program during the negotiations as a good faith gesture.
Lindsay Graham apparently believes that Donald Trump or Scott Walker can get a better deal by negotiating with a nuclear Iran without the support and sanctions of Europe, Russia, and China. Such confidence!
If Lindsey et al are successful in killing the proposed agreement, the only thing preventing a nuclear armed Iran would be Iran's leaders choice to act more like responsible adults than the Republican party's crop of presidential candidates.
Lindsay Graham apparently believes that Donald Trump or Scott Walker can get a better deal by negotiating with a nuclear Iran without the support and sanctions of Europe, Russia, and China. Such confidence!
If Lindsey et al are successful in killing the proposed agreement, the only thing preventing a nuclear armed Iran would be Iran's leaders choice to act more like responsible adults than the Republican party's crop of presidential candidates.
1
If Congress rejects the Iran agreement, what will happen to sanctions?
All signs indicate that International Community will no longer support sanctions. America will be all alone!
All signs indicate that International Community will no longer support sanctions. America will be all alone!
29
Remember when the United States stood alone in support of South Africa?
1
Rep Sander Levin should be commended for his thoughtfulness and courage to make the decision that advances American interests.
On the other hand, the American people's anger should turn against politicians and hard-liners who are undermining American interests to promote Israeli interests. As per the latest poll by Jewish Journal, even the American Jews support the Iran deal by a wide margin. So who are these politicians representing, politicians of a foreign country?
Think of American interests first.
On the other hand, the American people's anger should turn against politicians and hard-liners who are undermining American interests to promote Israeli interests. As per the latest poll by Jewish Journal, even the American Jews support the Iran deal by a wide margin. So who are these politicians representing, politicians of a foreign country?
Think of American interests first.
99
More than one poll has asked American Jews if they support the deal. And the results are all over the place, changing depending on what, whom, and how questions are asked, as they do will all pols. Let's be honest here, that wide margin you crow about is only a consequence of the option for respondents to state that they did not have enough information to answer the question "“As you may know, an agreement was reached in which the United States and other countries would lift major economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons.” Support the deal: 47.8%; Oppose the deal: 27.6%; Don’t know: 24.6% (See the (initial) results from one left- and one right-leaning organization in addition to the Jewish Journal at http://www.timesofisrael.com/with-polls-of-us-jews-on-iran-at-odds-whom-... Frankly, I don't think any of us can predict the consequences of this deal. The only thing I am willing to bet on is that if it turns out to be a bad deal, Americans, in general, are so much less likely to be in the line of fire than are those in the ME including non-Jews, Jews, Israelis, palestinians, and others.
U.S. Department of State lists Iran, Sudan, and Syria as State Sponsors of Terrorism. Mr. Cohen makes clear that the list should include Saudi Arabia. But it doesn't and it probably won't for as long as they control the oil and can pay for one hundred billion dollars worth of weapon contracts in a single year.
The decision making process Mr. Levin describes should be the obvious norm In a healthy political system. It is an aberration today because it does not work well in a political system that in its core believes money is speech.
The decision making process Mr. Levin describes should be the obvious norm In a healthy political system. It is an aberration today because it does not work well in a political system that in its core believes money is speech.
37
Characterizing Iran as an enemy and continuing sanctions, tattered or not, is not without cost to America. In this case, in addition to the economic and political cost, there is the fact that detente, not arms, destroyed the Soviet Union.
If Twitter, McDonald's and Netflix are to conquer Iran we must eliminate the cloak of protection our ridiculous sanctions give the current Iranian regime.
If Twitter, McDonald's and Netflix are to conquer Iran we must eliminate the cloak of protection our ridiculous sanctions give the current Iranian regime.
21
Could it be that part of Iran's move toward nuclear weapons was a defense against Israeli nuclear weapons? If I were one of Israel's neighbors, I would be very afraid that Netanayu would use them. Lets get Israel to junk their atom bombs too.
29
You're joking, right, about Iran fearing Israel? Their historic arch enemy, Iraq, fell. Their new arch enemy is Saudi Arabia. And Iran is winning.
It would be better to prevent the Arabs and Iranians from getting nukes but if Iran gets them first the Arabs will follow.
Probably no one believes the Iranians would get nukes to protect themselves from Israel.
It would be better to prevent the Arabs and Iranians from getting nukes but if Iran gets them first the Arabs will follow.
Probably no one believes the Iranians would get nukes to protect themselves from Israel.
1
Now there is a sensible idea that will never come to pass.
More likely a defense against us. After Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, we invaded Iraq. The North Koreans and Iranians, hearing their names equated to Saddam's and noting the length of time it took to overrun the Iraqi military, take careful note of this development. North Korea violates its nuclear agreement and tests its first nuclear weapon. Meanwhile Iran, with two U.S. armies bordering it, accelerates its program to create the deterrent North Korea developed against the sabre rattling of W, Rummy and Dick.
1
Dig deeply into the facts is a good start. The problem is, in this day, everyone creates facts. We all pick and choose the tremendous amount of information available by thousands of "experts" on the internet, we listen to paid PR "News casters". we hear biased politicians twisting info for their use and we think we are informed. (Unfortunately many don't do any of this and are totally ignorant of whats happening). So,we all have the "facts" except they are often the opposite of facts they are lies, misinformation and beliefs.
This is a no brainer, you don't need a lot of facts. Iran is well on the way for a nuc. It has not been stopped by sanctions, the people ,not the government are punished, all military experts say we cannot stop these developments with bombs only a full scale war with thousands of troops, and then years of occupation. Our "allies' will probably drop the sanctions regardless of our choice. The saudis and israelis always expect us to fight for them. The saudis and israelis are governments that oppress and imprison and both are run by religious fanatics so whats the f difference between them and Iran?
This is a no brainer, you don't need a lot of facts. Iran is well on the way for a nuc. It has not been stopped by sanctions, the people ,not the government are punished, all military experts say we cannot stop these developments with bombs only a full scale war with thousands of troops, and then years of occupation. Our "allies' will probably drop the sanctions regardless of our choice. The saudis and israelis always expect us to fight for them. The saudis and israelis are governments that oppress and imprison and both are run by religious fanatics so whats the f difference between them and Iran?
19
Since when is it courageous for a public servant to do what he/she feels is in the best interest of the United States? Sadly it is because Congress is populated by career politicians and not public servants.
32
Rep. Levin needs to bring some of his courage to Long Island, where a bunch of local politicians from both parties readily signed a letter opposing the Iran deal because they must kow-tow to the Jewish and Iranian-American communities living here. It goes to show how powerful these two lobbies are when they can reach down into local politics for support at a time when these officeholders should not be conducting foreign policy, but should be investigating the rot and corruption that pervades Long Island government.
Let the moneyed interests destroy this deal and we will end up with a nuclear Iran much faster than we think. Thank you, Rep. Levin, for standing tall in this fight.
Let the moneyed interests destroy this deal and we will end up with a nuclear Iran much faster than we think. Thank you, Rep. Levin, for standing tall in this fight.
31
Both Mr. Levin and Mr. Huckabee are religious men. Yet in the context of the excellent U.S.-Iran accord, their viewpoints are polar opposites. Why? The answer is simple.
Mr. Levin consults his faith selflessly; that is, for the good of mankind.
Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, uses religion to erect walls of distinction and ultimate division.
Mr. Huckabee, get your head out of the Old Testament (with its prevailing strife and brutality). It's time you join the Level Heads of the 21st century.
Mr. Levin consults his faith selflessly; that is, for the good of mankind.
Mr. Huckabee, on the other hand, uses religion to erect walls of distinction and ultimate division.
Mr. Huckabee, get your head out of the Old Testament (with its prevailing strife and brutality). It's time you join the Level Heads of the 21st century.
20
You realize the "Old Testment" is the one Mr. Levin follows?
Reasonable point. To which I will add the obvious:
Mr. Levin is grounded in his faith. Via the "Good Book" (and good upbringing) he chose, correctly, the path of inclusion.
Mr. Huckabee is a raging twister in his faith. Via the "Good Book" (and fundamentalist upbringing) he chose, incorrectly, the path of ignorance.
Mr. Levin is grounded in his faith. Via the "Good Book" (and good upbringing) he chose, correctly, the path of inclusion.
Mr. Huckabee is a raging twister in his faith. Via the "Good Book" (and fundamentalist upbringing) he chose, incorrectly, the path of ignorance.
2
With an ally like Saudi Arabia, who needs an enemy. For many decades the Saudis have used their oil reserves to keep America and the rest of the world under their thumb. But now with shale oil and green energy we have gained our freedom. Iranian oil on the market will further reduce Saudi control. Many difficult years lie ahead, but as i see it, there is no good reason now for Iran to be the enemy of America or of Israel. Their hostility all stems from deeds of the past: installing the Shah, shooting down the Iranian airliner, supporting Saddam Hussein. It extends to Israel mainly because Israel is our ally. If moderates can continue to gain power in Iran, and if the Israel-Palestinian problem can be resolved, the Middle East may finally become of more peaceful place.
22
It is curious how few other commenters have noted that this deal is in part a case of Saudi chickens coming home to roost. Saudi Arabia has been promoting its anti-modernity message worldwide.
At the same time, it is notable that while the ground for ISIS may have been prepared in part by Saudi propaganda, its resiliency is a direct result of Bremer's debaathification program, which completed the removal of Sunnis from power in Iraq.
At the same time, it is notable that while the ground for ISIS may have been prepared in part by Saudi propaganda, its resiliency is a direct result of Bremer's debaathification program, which completed the removal of Sunnis from power in Iraq.
22
Bravo, the good Roger is back, once again your narrative is balanced and enlightening with kudos to Mr. Levin for reminding me why I used to feel proud when I said I was a Jew.
20
If we can prevent or encourage countries not to have nuclear arms, it is all to the good.
Second, a country has the right to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, after due notice to protect its legitimate interests. Something that Iran has not done.
Although I am against nuclear bombs, I am not sure that a country can really be prevented from getting one, witness North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel.
Starting a war to prevent one country from getting the bomb should be the very last thing to be done.
While authoritarian states are not acceptable, theocratic states are even worse.
At the same time, many politically undeveloped countries are more conflictive and dangerous when an autocratic system falls apart.
Contrary to some opponents of the deal, I don't believe that Iran is just dying to drop a bomb on Israel. That would be suicide.
We cannot predict what comes out of any political or military action, witness the Iraq invasion. Better to give time a chance than to rush into a sure catastrophe.
The Middle East is a zone in turmoil because of religious wars, tribal enmities, dictatorial systems and geopolitical manipulations by big powers. It may take generations before things calm down and it is better not to precipitate irreversible events.
So, what is our conclusion?
Second, a country has the right to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty, after due notice to protect its legitimate interests. Something that Iran has not done.
Although I am against nuclear bombs, I am not sure that a country can really be prevented from getting one, witness North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel.
Starting a war to prevent one country from getting the bomb should be the very last thing to be done.
While authoritarian states are not acceptable, theocratic states are even worse.
At the same time, many politically undeveloped countries are more conflictive and dangerous when an autocratic system falls apart.
Contrary to some opponents of the deal, I don't believe that Iran is just dying to drop a bomb on Israel. That would be suicide.
We cannot predict what comes out of any political or military action, witness the Iraq invasion. Better to give time a chance than to rush into a sure catastrophe.
The Middle East is a zone in turmoil because of religious wars, tribal enmities, dictatorial systems and geopolitical manipulations by big powers. It may take generations before things calm down and it is better not to precipitate irreversible events.
So, what is our conclusion?
15
Roger,
ANOTHER well written Essay and here are some more Observations:
I. DESPITE all the Propaganda by Israel on Hezbollah, since "2006 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon", Hezbollah has maintained a Defensive Posture;
II. ISRAEL Lost that War to Hezbollah and instead of coming to grips with the Facts that even with having the most Powerful Army with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons, they could NOT Defeat a Militia Force;
III. THE Israeli Propaganda against Iran's Nuclear Program was launched so to "Buy Time To Ethnic Engineer The West Bank";
IV. Both AIPAC and Likud know well that Iran's Deal is a "Done Deal" and at this stage all the "Theatrics in Congress" are aimed at "Making Sure" that Mr. Obama will afford Israel the usual Veto on France's upcoming UN Resolution on Israel-Palestine Peace Initiative.
V. AS for the Saudi's Accusing Iran of re-constructing the Persian Empire, "The Opposite Is True" as they are trying to resurrect the Arab Empire by starting the Civil War in Syria and Invading Bahrain & Yemen.
VI. THE Good News however is that now that France is warming up to Iran (Laurent Fabius had a successful trip to Tehran yesterday), the EU, France and Iran can advance the UN Peace talks on Syria and Yemen and France can table the Israel-Palestine Peace Plan by getting Iran on side while the US denies Israel its usual UN Veto.
V. AND ALL This Could Happen By November 2015 As Time Is Of The Essence.
ANOTHER well written Essay and here are some more Observations:
I. DESPITE all the Propaganda by Israel on Hezbollah, since "2006 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon", Hezbollah has maintained a Defensive Posture;
II. ISRAEL Lost that War to Hezbollah and instead of coming to grips with the Facts that even with having the most Powerful Army with Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons, they could NOT Defeat a Militia Force;
III. THE Israeli Propaganda against Iran's Nuclear Program was launched so to "Buy Time To Ethnic Engineer The West Bank";
IV. Both AIPAC and Likud know well that Iran's Deal is a "Done Deal" and at this stage all the "Theatrics in Congress" are aimed at "Making Sure" that Mr. Obama will afford Israel the usual Veto on France's upcoming UN Resolution on Israel-Palestine Peace Initiative.
V. AS for the Saudi's Accusing Iran of re-constructing the Persian Empire, "The Opposite Is True" as they are trying to resurrect the Arab Empire by starting the Civil War in Syria and Invading Bahrain & Yemen.
VI. THE Good News however is that now that France is warming up to Iran (Laurent Fabius had a successful trip to Tehran yesterday), the EU, France and Iran can advance the UN Peace talks on Syria and Yemen and France can table the Israel-Palestine Peace Plan by getting Iran on side while the US denies Israel its usual UN Veto.
V. AND ALL This Could Happen By November 2015 As Time Is Of The Essence.
58
Absent not being joined at the hip to Israel with all the attendant implications and snares, what might you be thinking of in terms of:
“...change in the Middle Eastern equation in ways favorable to the American national interest.”
Sunni-Shia reconciliation, moderation of radical Islamic fundamentalism, stable national entities, resolution of viable Palestinian statehood, Israeli nuclear disarmament, peace in the entire region?
Putting men on the moon was a lark by comparison.
“...change in the Middle Eastern equation in ways favorable to the American national interest.”
Sunni-Shia reconciliation, moderation of radical Islamic fundamentalism, stable national entities, resolution of viable Palestinian statehood, Israeli nuclear disarmament, peace in the entire region?
Putting men on the moon was a lark by comparison.
10
Wow! Something really foreign to Washington. A thoughtful, wise man. I certainly hope there are more of them (and women) among the general population. I support the agreement, and I hope my own Jewish Senator Cardin will share that sentiment.
69
I do as well - and have written both my US Senators to vote for it as well.
4
"If fully implemented"-except that what RC and his ilk ignore are that Iran got enough concessions in the verification area that she will be able to build a bomb without it being discovered. The intensified inspections fall far short of what is necessary - as Obama and other administration officials all said over the past few years. But now that they've given in on the inspections, they pretend their previous statements never existed.
So Roger is right if Iran is a country of goodwill. But why should they be? They will be able to build a bomb with no penalty to themselves.
So Roger is right if Iran is a country of goodwill. But why should they be? They will be able to build a bomb with no penalty to themselves.
1
If Iran wanted they could build a bomb within a month now . but not with out it being known , just as it was well known when Israel took material and plans from the US and built a few hundred weapons of their own .
14
From my understanding, it is wrong factually to say that Iran can build a bomb undetected. The verification process is robust. Being able to work on triggers without detection is radically different from using enriched uranium. Any substantive move towards a bomb can be verified under the terms of the deal.
7
They did get a few concessions and gave some up as well. That's negotiations are about.
Bottom line, with the deal, Iran might have nuclear capabilities in 10-15 years. Withou it, they will probably have it within one year.
There were 5 other signatories to the deal, German business leaders have already visited Iran to set up their own deals - the sanctions hold if we reject this deal.
The deal is worth supporting. I hope members of Congress vote for it.
Bottom line, with the deal, Iran might have nuclear capabilities in 10-15 years. Withou it, they will probably have it within one year.
There were 5 other signatories to the deal, German business leaders have already visited Iran to set up their own deals - the sanctions hold if we reject this deal.
The deal is worth supporting. I hope members of Congress vote for it.
1
I applaud Mr. Levin for his studious preparation before his conclusions concerning the Iran deal. The sad part about this article is how it illuminates the insanity of US politics today.
30
Only 2% of Americans are Jewish. With 19 representatives and 9 Senators the U.S Congress is 5.2 % Jewish. Israel is not an American state, territory nor possession.
Israel has nuclear weapons and is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since World War II, Israel has received more American aid than any other nation. Including $ 3 billion a year in mostly military aid since 1985.
The 6 million Christian Muslim Palestinian Arabs under Israeli dominion by occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship are not divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For 60+ years America has been engaged in a covert and overt regime change war against Iran. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons.
One American's Iran is what matters. This nuclear deal with Iran is in the best national interests of America and in accord with it's values.
Israel has nuclear weapons and is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since World War II, Israel has received more American aid than any other nation. Including $ 3 billion a year in mostly military aid since 1985.
The 6 million Christian Muslim Palestinian Arabs under Israeli dominion by occupation, blockade/siege, exile and 2nd class citizenship are not divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For 60+ years America has been engaged in a covert and overt regime change war against Iran. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons.
One American's Iran is what matters. This nuclear deal with Iran is in the best national interests of America and in accord with it's values.
136
It will be the first positive thing we've done, in the Middle East, since...ever. Maybe we can regain some respect among the moderates, while continuing our support of our allies, not that I count Israel as one of them. Israel is running national TV ads designed to look like some nebulous American group. It should be illegal for foreign entities to run political ads that try to sway and fool our citizens, not to mention buying our congresspeople.
25
Sorry folks, but the discussion of the Iran agreement should not become an opportunity for those who love to bash Israel- a true ally of the U.S. It is the only democracy in the middle east and a strategic partner militarily as well as a strong source of significant intelligence for the U.S.
Despite the above disreputable comments of the contributors, the fact remains that 23% of Israel's citizens are Arab with full rights. Go to the malls or university campuses in Israel, witness its elections, and observe this for yourself in this open society. Israel is the ONLY country in the region that has an INCREASING Christian population.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, it has never declared its intention to use them offensively, nor threaten to "wipe a nation off the face of the earth," as Iran has. Rather it uses them as a preventive tool against the millions of its hostile neighbors. This is entirely appropriate.
Israel is not a territory of the U.S., but it is a reliable and supportive ally of the principles which America stands for. There are not too many countries that can we can say this about.
Despite the above disreputable comments of the contributors, the fact remains that 23% of Israel's citizens are Arab with full rights. Go to the malls or university campuses in Israel, witness its elections, and observe this for yourself in this open society. Israel is the ONLY country in the region that has an INCREASING Christian population.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, it has never declared its intention to use them offensively, nor threaten to "wipe a nation off the face of the earth," as Iran has. Rather it uses them as a preventive tool against the millions of its hostile neighbors. This is entirely appropriate.
Israel is not a territory of the U.S., but it is a reliable and supportive ally of the principles which America stands for. There are not too many countries that can we can say this about.
1
"Wipe..."? Always mistranslated. The Farsi statement by the Holocaust-denying pipsqueak (Maureen Dowd's incisive description) translates to "vanish from the pages of time"--an anti-colonialist formulation equally applicable to British India, French Algeria, Spanish Cuba (and perhaps European America, had we not exterminated the original peoples here...)
1
Constituents of U.S. senators who, like Rep. Levin, are Jewish should contact them to let them know they are in favor of the Iran deal.
Tremendous pressure is being put on Jewish members of Congress, particularly Sen. Schumer of New York and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, by AIPAC and other groups that are supporting Israel's position that the Iran deal is a "bad deal" but have absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative -- other than (implicitly) war.
Despite such intense lobbying efforts, when it comes right down to it, members of Congress listen most intently to their constituents who take the trouble to contact them. They figure (and they are right) that for every one constituent who contacts them, there are probably about 10 more that feel the same way but couldn't be bothered.
And if you are a Jewish constituent who decides to contact these Jewish members of Congress, PLEASE MENTION IT.
Tremendous pressure is being put on Jewish members of Congress, particularly Sen. Schumer of New York and Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, by AIPAC and other groups that are supporting Israel's position that the Iran deal is a "bad deal" but have absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative -- other than (implicitly) war.
Despite such intense lobbying efforts, when it comes right down to it, members of Congress listen most intently to their constituents who take the trouble to contact them. They figure (and they are right) that for every one constituent who contacts them, there are probably about 10 more that feel the same way but couldn't be bothered.
And if you are a Jewish constituent who decides to contact these Jewish members of Congress, PLEASE MENTION IT.
131
I am a Unitarian and live in Maryland, my opinion should count as well.
2
BRAVO Congressman Levin!!! Yes! Diplomacy is preferable to WAR! Thank you for your courageous support!
170
The hearings are fascinating to watch.
Some senators are so sanctimonious in the line of questioning. Paraphrasing here: Sirs, did these bombs that Iran funded that were used in Iraq destroy humvees and kill Americans? Yes. What does this prove??
We are the ones who invaded Iraq under false pretenses and killed and tortured many!
The US dropped atomic bombs on innocent Japanese, for heaven's sake! Since when are we beyond reproach?
The fact that Iran gets to continue its support of terrorism in the form of of Hezbollah is definitely a sticking point for me and one I wish would have been resolved in these negotiations but I strongly support this deal and believe it is the way forward.
Some senators are so sanctimonious in the line of questioning. Paraphrasing here: Sirs, did these bombs that Iran funded that were used in Iraq destroy humvees and kill Americans? Yes. What does this prove??
We are the ones who invaded Iraq under false pretenses and killed and tortured many!
The US dropped atomic bombs on innocent Japanese, for heaven's sake! Since when are we beyond reproach?
The fact that Iran gets to continue its support of terrorism in the form of of Hezbollah is definitely a sticking point for me and one I wish would have been resolved in these negotiations but I strongly support this deal and believe it is the way forward.
60
I would like to make a comment about Hizbollah. Yes they are a
radical influence in Lebanon, and are fully funded by Iran, but why are they
influential? Not because of the existence of Israel. They represent, maybe
a third of the population, the Shi-ites, who for a century were treated as
an inferior population by the fragile Sunni/Christian ruling majority. They
wanted their share of governance, and Iran was more than happy to
help them try.
LL
radical influence in Lebanon, and are fully funded by Iran, but why are they
influential? Not because of the existence of Israel. They represent, maybe
a third of the population, the Shi-ites, who for a century were treated as
an inferior population by the fragile Sunni/Christian ruling majority. They
wanted their share of governance, and Iran was more than happy to
help them try.
LL
7
I agree - but getting this deal passed is a better way to influence Iran (on its support of Hezbollah and Hamas) than threatening war and keeping it as an outlier stare.
Yes, but Hizbollah uses the excuse to destroy Israel as the domestic need for its existence. They also are armed (by Iran even though tight for money because of sanctions) with over 100,000 missiles located among the population of southern Lebanon and ready to fire at Israel. And, incidentally essentially keeping Assad in power in Syria.
This is just one of the illustrations demonstrating the new "axis of evil"we are dealing with in the middle east.
This is just one of the illustrations demonstrating the new "axis of evil"we are dealing with in the middle east.
Most people who shoot from the hip on a response to this agreement are NOT scientists and have no idea about how uranium is enriched. It is not an easy process, and controlling it is not that difficult. Enriched uranium at 5% is great for nuclear power plants but it has no value in Bomb making. So take some time, hold your quick-reflex thoughts, and learn about the deal and how to enrich uranium and you might not feel so dumb. But you will be more empowered with knowledge so that you can make a more informed decision than the "door of an oven".
54
Well, just a little something for the Zionists and their deep need for more war. The Old Testament instructs them to kill all the "others." They can hardly wait to push that button.
9
This is an important point, but why do so few who make it state the percentage of U-235 that is required for bomb making? It's in the range of 85-90 percent, far beyond 3-5 percent reactor grade. Most people don't know that the gap is that wide.
I am an American Jew, and a Zionist, and I am unalterably opposed to the far-right conservatives in Israel expanding their settlements, forbidding the development of a Palestinian state, and trying to influence the politics and policies of the United States.
We are separate countries with separate needs and agendas, and for Israel to dominate American policy toward the Middle East is like the tail trying to wag the dog.
Once upon a time, Israel was primarily a liberal socialist country that sought peace with its neighbors. Palestinians were respected; peace existed with Lebanon and trade as well, although that was kept silent to shield Lebanon from the crazies in the Middle East. I'd like to see a return to those days, a retreat from hard-line Israeli right-wing warmongering and hatred.
This Obama-Kerry six nation deal with Iran is a brilliant masterstroke of diplomacy backed up by economic muscle. We drew together an anti-nuclear coalition and put the economic screws to Iran so hard and for so long that they cried Uncle and came to the negotiating table where Kerry hammered out an agreement that stops their nuclear development in its tracks.
It's a marvelous agreement, and after 10 years the Iranians will think twice about suffering under renewed economic sanctions and realize that they don't need nuclear weapons as much as they need international trade and being part of the world.
We are separate countries with separate needs and agendas, and for Israel to dominate American policy toward the Middle East is like the tail trying to wag the dog.
Once upon a time, Israel was primarily a liberal socialist country that sought peace with its neighbors. Palestinians were respected; peace existed with Lebanon and trade as well, although that was kept silent to shield Lebanon from the crazies in the Middle East. I'd like to see a return to those days, a retreat from hard-line Israeli right-wing warmongering and hatred.
This Obama-Kerry six nation deal with Iran is a brilliant masterstroke of diplomacy backed up by economic muscle. We drew together an anti-nuclear coalition and put the economic screws to Iran so hard and for so long that they cried Uncle and came to the negotiating table where Kerry hammered out an agreement that stops their nuclear development in its tracks.
It's a marvelous agreement, and after 10 years the Iranians will think twice about suffering under renewed economic sanctions and realize that they don't need nuclear weapons as much as they need international trade and being part of the world.
793
Boy, do I hope you are right.
5
Bravo Porter. I agree with you. Netanyahu keeps power in Israel by fear-mongering but when he leaves office (not soon enough for me), Israel will be farther away from a peace solution with its neighbors.
This is a good deal - I've contacted both my Senators asking them to support it. They are Democrats. My Congressman is Republican, I will contact him as well but am not sure how much good it will do.
This is a good deal - I've contacted both my Senators asking them to support it. They are Democrats. My Congressman is Republican, I will contact him as well but am not sure how much good it will do.
13
Porter, clearly you are a good person, of wise mind and ethical heart. The part of your commentary about the Israel/Palestine/U.S. travesty may be the best, truest, encapsulation I've ever read. It would be an honor to know you.
8
As usual, Mr. Cohen is on target. A propos his comments on our Saudi friends, and what I at least would also say about Israe's unwillingness to make peace with the Palestinians, l, the U. S. has "allies of a kind," a phrase used by Christopher Thorne as the title of his excellent history of the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater in WWII where the British imperial restoration aim clashed with U. S. anti-colonialism and the Kuomintang's focus on the Communists not the Japanese. What I would like to see from both Saudi Arabia and Israel is a certain effort to help us. We help them. We are their "allies." The question is whether they really are ours.
20
"Don't just do something, stand there!" seems to have been the Republican mantra since Obama was elected.
23
Actually, it has been more pernicious than that. They have been knee-jerk anti-Obama since he was elected. I believe there are rational Republicans in Washington. I hope they vote for the good of the U.S. and support this deal.
'the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress' or part of the Professional Political Class that tell us do what we say, not what we do. Sorry Mr. Cohen but diapers and politicians should be changed often, both for the same reasons.
5
Looking beyond the "deal" the US should look into its own sorry history of dealings with Iran. The US was behind the overthrow of a popularly elected government and the imposition of the dictatorial Shah. Have we forgotten all of this? Did the 1979 anti-American attitude spring from nowhere? We should be seeking the normalization of diplomatic relations with Iran.
35
Did engagement "transform" or give "destructive license" to post WWII Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? - two of the most horrific regimes to soil our planet.
We blew it with post-communist Russia, by expanding NATO rather than welcoming it into Europe and the world. Ukraine is just one of the many disastrous fallouts from that ennobled policy.
Why now fixate on the "perfection" usually seen and demanded only by religious zealots? The imperfect agreement with Iran is one that everyone in and out of Iran should be incredibly thankful for.
Let the world move forward! And the Iranian people with it. We will all benefit.
We blew it with post-communist Russia, by expanding NATO rather than welcoming it into Europe and the world. Ukraine is just one of the many disastrous fallouts from that ennobled policy.
Why now fixate on the "perfection" usually seen and demanded only by religious zealots? The imperfect agreement with Iran is one that everyone in and out of Iran should be incredibly thankful for.
Let the world move forward! And the Iranian people with it. We will all benefit.
45
Bravo! Saudi Arabia has caused more trouble in the world than Iran ever has. It has taught, financed and exported the terror that has wreaked havoc throughout the Sunni world.
Certainly, Iran has caused its share of problems. It's use of proxies to spread Iranian power has filled plenty of coffins. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Israel claims that there can be no peace with Iran because they have pledged to destroy Israel. Tell me, which Arab nation, at one time or another, has not pledged to destroy Israel? They all have. The "death to America death to Israel chants" in Iranian politics have been so overused that they are almost comical. If I were President and addressed a large crowd of Iranians, I would chant death to America and then say, 'Is this not the custom?"
Sander Levin is being realistic and practical, not ideological. That's how problems get solved. Listen to him.
Certainly, Iran has caused its share of problems. It's use of proxies to spread Iranian power has filled plenty of coffins. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Israel claims that there can be no peace with Iran because they have pledged to destroy Israel. Tell me, which Arab nation, at one time or another, has not pledged to destroy Israel? They all have. The "death to America death to Israel chants" in Iranian politics have been so overused that they are almost comical. If I were President and addressed a large crowd of Iranians, I would chant death to America and then say, 'Is this not the custom?"
Sander Levin is being realistic and practical, not ideological. That's how problems get solved. Listen to him.
121
And like the other Arab dictatorships,the Saudi rulers have used Israel as a way to distract their people from seeing that they don't have any power.
3
Bravo, Sander Levin! Intellectual honesty and political courage are always in short supply on Capitol Hill, but the cowardly distortions of the nuclear agreement with Iran by Republicans and the deafening silence by many Democrats have been really embarrassing.
There apparently are no limits to which the current Israeli leadership will go – ironically marching in lockstep with our pseudo-allies in Saudi Arabia – in its effort to defeat this deal. The Iran agreement is in the very best interests of Israel and the United States, and the opposition led by Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong-headed and dishonest.
Roger Cohen does everyone a service by continuing to focus on this crucial crossroads in our history. His mantra is that facts -- not emotion and political convenience -- are what matters on a subject so important. Bravo, Roger Cohen!
There apparently are no limits to which the current Israeli leadership will go – ironically marching in lockstep with our pseudo-allies in Saudi Arabia – in its effort to defeat this deal. The Iran agreement is in the very best interests of Israel and the United States, and the opposition led by Prime Minister Netanyahu is wrong-headed and dishonest.
Roger Cohen does everyone a service by continuing to focus on this crucial crossroads in our history. His mantra is that facts -- not emotion and political convenience -- are what matters on a subject so important. Bravo, Roger Cohen!
91
I would like to see the deal pass but make no mistake about it, the Saudis and Iranians are at war. Perhaps by proxy and cyber, but it's not peace. The whole region is at war, Turkey included.
1
Another thoughtful Roger Cohen column. Quoting Rep. Sander Levin's “In my view, the only anchors in public life are to dig deeply into the facts and consult broadly and then to say what you believe,” highlights that rarest of congressional qualities, wisdom based on researched knowledge.
Sometimes one's obtusest of friends can be persuaded by another whose life-long friendship is beyond question, although we can be sure that the mutant court jester-du-jour that Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker and "The Donald" have become will find rhetorical subterfuges to raise the doubt.
The notion that the Iran agreement represents something worse than the status quo ante defies common reason. I am deeply thankful for cogent, courageous representatives like Sander Levin and wish there were more like him starting, perhaps, with Senator Chuck Schumer.
As for extremists in Israel's Likud government, Levin might as well be trying to explain neurosurgery to a plastic wind-up toy. Let's proceed to better protecting Israel and the world while ignoring the obstructive static from Likud and our own fulminating GOP.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Sometimes one's obtusest of friends can be persuaded by another whose life-long friendship is beyond question, although we can be sure that the mutant court jester-du-jour that Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker and "The Donald" have become will find rhetorical subterfuges to raise the doubt.
The notion that the Iran agreement represents something worse than the status quo ante defies common reason. I am deeply thankful for cogent, courageous representatives like Sander Levin and wish there were more like him starting, perhaps, with Senator Chuck Schumer.
As for extremists in Israel's Likud government, Levin might as well be trying to explain neurosurgery to a plastic wind-up toy. Let's proceed to better protecting Israel and the world while ignoring the obstructive static from Likud and our own fulminating GOP.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
32
Are you going to write a similar article about Democratic Rep Grace Meng who opposes the deal? Last time I checked she is not a war mongering Republican....
3
Mr. Cohen...My thanks for your words on this crucial issue today. As an Average aged man, I am only a spectator in this continued politicized maze. I am, however, a Chronic Voter, frustrated that our Public seems not to "know enough to care...or care enough to know"...as our "elected Leaders" play Loose with valuable time and money in the everlasting thrust for Control. I trust my President and believe in the presence of other Peaceful people around the Globe. I, have, at 78, senna one era of the Bomb, and hope my grandchildren need not see another.
14
This boils down to "he says, she says". Levin, Democrat of Michigan, dug deep into the facts. And that means ipso facto he is correct? For every Levin, there can and is, someone else who also dug deep into the facts and comes up with the opposite conclusion.
Or is the fact that he is Jewish what is important to you? That since he is Jewish he should automatically support the Israeli view and not US interests? That would seem somewhat of a problematical statement. Do you believe that?
But it is tiresome to argue this over and over, more "you say, I say", so I will relate to one point: "(the deal) preserves all American options in combating Iranian support for Hezbollah". And just what pray tell are those options and just how has the US combated Iranian support for Hezbollah so far? Actually how has the US itself combated Hezbollah? Indeed the State Department has stated that it is illegal to provide resources and funds to Hezbollah. C'est tout! Allow me not to get overly excited by the point that you make re Hezbollah. But then this is indicative of much of this.
And please remember that American ambassadors to Israel were there to represent US interests not Israel, so why should their letter impress anybody in Israel?
Your faith in the potential of Saudi Arabia as opposed to the hope that Iran might change the equation in ways favorable to the US is terribly misguided, but then if the Saudis and Israel agree on something, how can it be correct?
Or is the fact that he is Jewish what is important to you? That since he is Jewish he should automatically support the Israeli view and not US interests? That would seem somewhat of a problematical statement. Do you believe that?
But it is tiresome to argue this over and over, more "you say, I say", so I will relate to one point: "(the deal) preserves all American options in combating Iranian support for Hezbollah". And just what pray tell are those options and just how has the US combated Iranian support for Hezbollah so far? Actually how has the US itself combated Hezbollah? Indeed the State Department has stated that it is illegal to provide resources and funds to Hezbollah. C'est tout! Allow me not to get overly excited by the point that you make re Hezbollah. But then this is indicative of much of this.
And please remember that American ambassadors to Israel were there to represent US interests not Israel, so why should their letter impress anybody in Israel?
Your faith in the potential of Saudi Arabia as opposed to the hope that Iran might change the equation in ways favorable to the US is terribly misguided, but then if the Saudis and Israel agree on something, how can it be correct?
4
Doesn't Israel receive arms and other forms of military aid from the U.S.? And aren't these arms used by Israel against Hizbollah?
What is Israel doing with regards to the Palestinians? What do you think expanding settlements does to ameliorate tensions?
What is Israel doing with regards to the Palestinians? What do you think expanding settlements does to ameliorate tensions?
Opposition to Obama is blindly against anything he accomplishes, to the point of treason.
22
When ethno-religious considerations begin to play a role in the shaping of foreign and domestic policy, the spirit of the nation becomes more torn apart than it is anyhow. Of Sander Levin I know only that he is an opponent of the Constitutionally guaranteed right of gun ownership and carrying, and an opponent of the right to hold a foreign bank account without government's additional meddling in private affairs. It is surprising that no one in Congress has yet urged to look at the agreement with Iran through the lens of the long hostile relationships between Christianity and Islam.
Well, why don't we look at iran's recent history. Democratic government, overthrown with instillation of despot (by a christian nation and super power). Could this have anything to do with our relations since? Do you know any history?
1
Roger Cohen writes, "Now the Saudis are American allies." Are they really? How can Roger write that knowing full well that the madrassas schools the Saudis run and finance are the principal sources of hatred towards America and the West.
8
Any fair-minded review of the post-WW2 record proves Cohen's point. The Saudis cost us billions by driving up OPEC oil prices in the 70s and then cost us billions by driving down oil prices in the last six months. The Saudis fanned the flames of extremism across the Middle East with their backing of pro-Salafi groups and they helped create Bin Ladenism as well as ISIS. Meanwhile, they click to a medieval theocratic view of the world that is at odds with our way of life.
But let's tip our hat to Saudi lobbyists and apologists in this country for feeding the fiction that this is a strategic relationship. The truth is that our backing of Riyadh has absurdly too costly and dangerous for the U.S.
But let's tip our hat to Saudi lobbyists and apologists in this country for feeding the fiction that this is a strategic relationship. The truth is that our backing of Riyadh has absurdly too costly and dangerous for the U.S.
376
Indeed, almost as costly as our relationship with israel.
1
Sparky,
Nicely stated. We appear as stumblebums on the world stage, and have for decades, yet our calcified parties and politics forbid us changing policy, even a little!
Now a war preventing agreement comes along and the entire GOP and a majority of Americans OPPOSE it! They say they have another better deal, but fail to say what that may be! And the little people of America agree!
Here's the truth; It's this deal or war, and probably without the help of the other big 5.
Here's another point; We really need to be worried about nuclear Pakistan and India. Even a small exchange between these two embittered enemies would produce a minor nuclear winter that could starve some 2 billion people.
Nicely stated. We appear as stumblebums on the world stage, and have for decades, yet our calcified parties and politics forbid us changing policy, even a little!
Now a war preventing agreement comes along and the entire GOP and a majority of Americans OPPOSE it! They say they have another better deal, but fail to say what that may be! And the little people of America agree!
Here's the truth; It's this deal or war, and probably without the help of the other big 5.
Here's another point; We really need to be worried about nuclear Pakistan and India. Even a small exchange between these two embittered enemies would produce a minor nuclear winter that could starve some 2 billion people.
2
When I listen to Congressional posturing on the Iran deal all I hear is self serving egotistical blather. There is nothing about what they feel should be done but shoot now and ask questions later just as we did in Iraq. Because they did not have the main influence in creating it the deal must be bad and this goes for Republicans and their minion who are jumping up and down to be President thoughtlessly.
I know these guys and gals are nothing but politicians, but didn't we hire them to create something of value for the country besides hot hair which with global warming there is enough already to go around.
I know these guys and gals are nothing but politicians, but didn't we hire them to create something of value for the country besides hot hair which with global warming there is enough already to go around.
16
Mr. Cohen seems to be suggesting that we look out for our own best interests, not those of Israel or Saudi Arabia. The nerve! (although this deal is in Israel's best interests, they just refuse to see that ).
14
Another argument in favor of the deal: 10-15 years of free-market capitalism would enable Iran to be connected to the rest of the world, thereby providing powerful alternatives to religious isolationism. Who knows; such connections between the already pro-Western Iranian population and the modern world might even result in changes in Iran's government. Look at what's starting to happen in Cuba...
15
I really cannot understand the mindset of those who believe this deal is the equivalent of Chamberlain in 1938. The powers that negotiated this deal are the UN Security Council plus Germany/EU. Biggest countries, biggest militaries, biggest economies. Hitler could not be stopped because he had the biggest and most modern armed forces at the time. Iran is nowhere near being in the same position as Germany in 1938. The second part that troubles me is that there is no downside to initiating the agreement and then watching carefully what Iran does. If Iran fails to comply, then all other options are still on the table.
18
Refreshing to hear from someone who agrees with Mr. Obama on Iran’s deal. We only read or listen from individuals, chicken hawks known as Republicans and their so called friends. War is not a solution.
15
In putting the best interests of the US first, which is his duty as a member of Congress, I feel that Mr. Levin has rendered a service to Israel by showing to the Israeli public that 1) not all Jewish Americans bow before the supposed wisdom of their Prime Minister - if "wisdom" can even be used in the context of someone who so stridently supported the Iraq War fiasco, and 2) that said Prime Minister, by so openly targeting the Obama Administration as an enemy, has squandered what used to be bi-partisan support for Israel.
23
What he says about the Saudis is correct. We would be far better off acting in our true national interests rather than as tools of the Israelis and Saudis. Price of oil? Let it rise to the true market price, allowing us to move on and leave this desert to the Saudis. We are virtual prisoners in the ME, held by oil.
4
Republicans, in their quest to 'sink' Obama, are following the ostrich policy, hide their heads, which includes their eyes, ears and minds, when reality seems hostile to their rigid ideology. As a matter of course, they opposed this diplomatic feat with Iran from the very beginning, and ignoring the facts, and inviting war as a result. When Einstein was asked whether the Universe had limits or constraints, he said he didn't know for certain...but what he definitely knew had no limits, was human stupidity.
14
WOW, someone turned the light on! Now if only ONE of our Jewish lawmakers could state the obvious, the Israel has turned into our spoiled child, one with a leader that will say anything to undermine our elected president, including the scandal of him showing up invited to speak to OUR lawmakers condeming OUR president. There is something really wrong with a country that receives more aid than most states to do this and have no penalty. It is time for American Jews to put on their big boy pants and state publicially that being against the viscious foreign policy of Israel, condemed in by all on the planet except the U.S., is NOT being antisemetic, it is being anti Israel. Bringing up the holocost every time someone criticises Israel is not just incorrect, it is a slight to all those who died. Those progressive Jews would never have stood with the policies of modern day Israel.
21
Observer, you are not very observant. One of our Jewish lawmakers did state the obvious, as basically this whole article is about Rep. Sander M. Levin and what he said. And how would you know the minds of progressive Jews? And I take offense at your statement that "it is time for American Jews to put on their big boy pants" and etc. And, in addition, your spelling could use some work.
4
One of the most depressing things about the debate over the Iran deal are the assumptions, contrary to the evidence of history and moral thought, that countries will never change, and that if they oppose our policies, then it's OK to bomb them. Both Israel and Iran have changed significantly over time, and will continue to do so, so the real goal of the deal should be to create the conditions that will help Iran change into a place that, because it has a real stake in peace and international integration, ceases to pursue policies that threaten other countries or ethnic and religious groups. Our policies should aim for the same outcome in the cases of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The eagerness of so many U.S. politicians to put this country's military resources at the disposal of small countries' reactionary governments for the purpose of destroying their enemies is surreal and incredibly short-sighted.
487
You are wrong. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Iran will NEVER stop wanting to destroy Israel. Their hatred is stronger than their desire for a strong economy. You can only negotiate with reasonable nations, and Iran, China, and Russia are even more corrupt that our own country.
1
You present what is in essence a straw man argument. No one denies that Iran could change, but people do question whether giving a major victory to its theocratic leadership is the right way to effect the change we want.
Nor does anyone say that if countries oppose our policies it's "okay to bomb them." This is simply a caricature.
Why not engage with the actual arguments of opponents of the Iran deal, including that uranium enrichment will continue, that the entire agreement expires in a time frame that could see that same regime in power and pursuing the same strategic goals, that the inspections regime is inadequate, and that it is pushing regional allies such as the Gulf Arab states to pursue security arrangements with hostile powers such as Russia and China?
Nor does anyone say that if countries oppose our policies it's "okay to bomb them." This is simply a caricature.
Why not engage with the actual arguments of opponents of the Iran deal, including that uranium enrichment will continue, that the entire agreement expires in a time frame that could see that same regime in power and pursuing the same strategic goals, that the inspections regime is inadequate, and that it is pushing regional allies such as the Gulf Arab states to pursue security arrangements with hostile powers such as Russia and China?
1
If only the "merchants of death" aka the international arms industry (WMD) had less influence over political decision-making our world would be a better place to live; and more secure. The present dire situation in Europe with 5-star Generals urging increasing military spending to confront Russia has only made the Ukraine civil war go from bad to worse. Russia can easily raise the stakes and they are doing so faster than us. NATO an organisation in search of a reason to exist has identified a new punching-bag. Repeat performance: Europe on the front-line to re-engage in a newly designed cold war which only encourages the Ukraine government not to find a compromise. Their shattered economy requires more infusions of aid from the EU IMF and the USA. For America having a military empire comes at a high price. It seems sometimes we forget that wars beget new wars...like Iraq is now a regional war started by invading Iraq in 2003. Either wars are obsolete or mankind?
1
Thanks to Roger and Representative Levin for a good dose of sense. I would add Mossad figures like Meir Dagan and Gabi Ashkenazi to the list of those who have been saying for years that Iran was not an imminent danger for Israel, much to the indifference of Netanyahu. What is puzzling is why any constituents would not welcome an analysis that there is no mortal danger and there is progress on mitigating enmity. People have given into the fear-mongering of cynical leaders like Bibi and George W. Gush for far too long. Real leadership is incompatible with manipulating public sentiment for political expediency.
17
I've consistently voted for Levin because he has intelligence and integrity, as he has demonstrated in not just this decision about the Iran agreement but in most other matters as well. There's not much about Israel that I like, but Levin's vote is not an endorsement or an indictment of that country: Levin intends to vote for the agreement because it's the sane rational thing to do for the interests of the US.
21
Excellent column. I thank you, and Congressman Levin, for a badly needed dose of sanity and fact.
14
Roger, when you write that there's "a prevalent political culture of ignoring inconvenient facts, consulting narrowly if at all, and never saying what you believe when it’s not what your constituency wants to hear...and where fact-based reasoning on Capitol Hill and beyond tends to take second place to preposterous posturing...." that is not an accurate bipartisan characterization.
That is the Republican playbook of denialism, nihilism, obfuscation, fear-mongering, misinformation and war-hawking.
While Democrats are not paragons of virtue, they are not allergic to diplomacy, reason and fact like our seditionist friends on the other side of the egg-and-tomato-throwing aisle.
Saudi Arabia's fostering and global export of extremist, conservative Wahhabism has fostered the global terrorism industry and has single-handedly done more much more harm than Iran has done to the world and to the United States.
And similarly, the Republican Party's fostering and fomentation of extremist, conservative ignorance, cognitive dissonance, fear and war-mongering has fostered catastrophic, Neo-Con-Artist, American foreign policy instincts that have done infinitely more harm to America than Iran has done to America.
America has met the enemy...and it's Republican.
That is the Republican playbook of denialism, nihilism, obfuscation, fear-mongering, misinformation and war-hawking.
While Democrats are not paragons of virtue, they are not allergic to diplomacy, reason and fact like our seditionist friends on the other side of the egg-and-tomato-throwing aisle.
Saudi Arabia's fostering and global export of extremist, conservative Wahhabism has fostered the global terrorism industry and has single-handedly done more much more harm than Iran has done to the world and to the United States.
And similarly, the Republican Party's fostering and fomentation of extremist, conservative ignorance, cognitive dissonance, fear and war-mongering has fostered catastrophic, Neo-Con-Artist, American foreign policy instincts that have done infinitely more harm to America than Iran has done to America.
America has met the enemy...and it's Republican.
278
"Preposterous posturing" seems redundant, but it does portray the rhetoric of the RIGHT because that too is redundant. As for the Saudi's, one would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to agree with you. They gave the world Osama and the rest is confusion and TERROR. The history of the Western World in the Middle East is rather hideous. From Britain we have these hacked up pieces of land claiming to be countries when they are simply a combination of tribal groupings. It is as if the UK decided to leave it in chaos for years to come. Yes, I agree with Mr. Levin. To assume the contrary is to want a solution that results in War and mayhem. As the Western World aka the USA seeps into Iran via pop culture there may be a chance for change. The American pop culture has a way of transcending enmity and old repressive regimes. It would be a lesson in diplomacy to allow the youth of the region to communicate with our youth without obstruction from the old guard. Of course, there will be resistance from the religious authorities there, but youth will ultimately be served. As for Israel's PM, he seems to be living in a dream of power and ought to be watched very carefully because he is a dangerous player. We all want peace for the Israeli's, but using the weapons of war is not the best way to get there.
13
Sixty two years of hostile US actions have made Iran an enemy.
1953 Eisenhower deposes Iranian Prime Minister Mossadecq, Time Magazine Man of The Year ('53) installs Reza Pahlavi, the boy shah. Gifts Iran nuclear technology in the Atoms For Peace program. Pahlavi is by turns a feckless and brutal dictator.
When the Iranian Revolution comes Reagan funds Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, gives Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve the use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
USS Vincennes shoots down Iran Air 655 killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children.
The US, in league with the largest rogue nuclear proliferator, Israel, cyber nukes Iran.
The US is currently trying to starve Iran.
We, in our exceptional hubris and arrogance made Iran our enemy.
1953 Eisenhower deposes Iranian Prime Minister Mossadecq, Time Magazine Man of The Year ('53) installs Reza Pahlavi, the boy shah. Gifts Iran nuclear technology in the Atoms For Peace program. Pahlavi is by turns a feckless and brutal dictator.
When the Iranian Revolution comes Reagan funds Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, gives Saddam Hussein satellite imagery to improve the use of chemical WMD's on Iran.
USS Vincennes shoots down Iran Air 655 killing 290 civilians, 66 of them children.
The US, in league with the largest rogue nuclear proliferator, Israel, cyber nukes Iran.
The US is currently trying to starve Iran.
We, in our exceptional hubris and arrogance made Iran our enemy.
25
Our most urgent national problem is the bipartisan spirit in Washington D.C.
We don’t talk here about a lack of it but the surplus of it.
America is being seriously harmed by extremely dangerous bipartisan spirit in our national capital. We have been on the wrong course for so long. Such a development was possible only if BOTH PARTIES were equally incompetent.
Waging the endless foreign wars for 7 decades since the end of the WWII is tragically bad. Having $18 trillion national debt is a direct consequence of our failing foreign policies. The free trade that syphons off about $600 billion dollars in cash every year from America and ships millions of the US jobs overseas is equally harmful. Having our elected officials corrupted by the global corporations is extremely dangerous because they serve the corporate interests, not the national ones.
We have spent about $18 trillion over the last three decades on our military just because our leaders are tragically bad. If they knew how to make the North and South Koreans good neighbors, or the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Sunnis and the Shiites we wouldn’t not have those problems.
But our leaders believe their job is to support one side in those conflicts instead of teaching them to tolerance, justice, and love.
Don’t protect them eternally. Just teach them how to be the good neighbors.
If you don’t know how to accomplish such a simple objective, please resign for the sake of our country!
We don’t talk here about a lack of it but the surplus of it.
America is being seriously harmed by extremely dangerous bipartisan spirit in our national capital. We have been on the wrong course for so long. Such a development was possible only if BOTH PARTIES were equally incompetent.
Waging the endless foreign wars for 7 decades since the end of the WWII is tragically bad. Having $18 trillion national debt is a direct consequence of our failing foreign policies. The free trade that syphons off about $600 billion dollars in cash every year from America and ships millions of the US jobs overseas is equally harmful. Having our elected officials corrupted by the global corporations is extremely dangerous because they serve the corporate interests, not the national ones.
We have spent about $18 trillion over the last three decades on our military just because our leaders are tragically bad. If they knew how to make the North and South Koreans good neighbors, or the Israelis and the Palestinians or the Sunnis and the Shiites we wouldn’t not have those problems.
But our leaders believe their job is to support one side in those conflicts instead of teaching them to tolerance, justice, and love.
Don’t protect them eternally. Just teach them how to be the good neighbors.
If you don’t know how to accomplish such a simple objective, please resign for the sake of our country!
1
Thanks Roger Cohen for this cogent article on the Iran treaty/agreement. Using Rep.Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, as an example of real thinking on the outcome of a deal w/Iran, adding the history of Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi's position on the matter, are all historical facts and known. It is still important to have them set out again in this manner for it positions this most delicate act of diplomacy where it should stand: a new path for a hopeful future in the Middle East that will afford, if not peace, at least a semblance of compromise and good faith in the possibility of another way to live in that most troubled area.
7
this country needs a more basic discussion of our role in the middle east and indeed elsewhere in the world. the article calls Saudi Arabia our ally. are they really and if so how did they become an ally. we have no defense treaty with them-like nato. there has been no debate in congress or in the country about whether we should be treating the gulf states or for that matter Israel, Ukraine Vietnam and a lot of other countries we are supposedly on the hook to defend as allies. various administrations have made these "commitments" without any debate. once they are made they are set in stone. when we analyze the situation we really have no interest in defending the gulf states-we don't need their oil any more. they are not democracies. their economies have nothing to offer other than oil(unlike iran). I suppose they buy a lot of American arms but like all good merchants of death the weapons makers would be perfectly happy to sell them to iran as well.
10
Excellent piece. Whether one approves or opposes the deal, this is a well written explanation as as to the reasons it's not the disaster some politicians proclaim.
Anything one can do to keep Iran at the table talking is an improvement over Iran rocking back and forth in a corner plotting the nuclear destruction of the world as we know it. That is short-sighted and an invitation to a much bigger problem. Besides, recent history has amply demonstrated that We, the People have to business toppling regimes militarily.
No, it's not the best deal. Yes, there is room for improvement. But gee, it's a start.
As some very famous once said, "All we are saying is give peace a chance."
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
Anything one can do to keep Iran at the table talking is an improvement over Iran rocking back and forth in a corner plotting the nuclear destruction of the world as we know it. That is short-sighted and an invitation to a much bigger problem. Besides, recent history has amply demonstrated that We, the People have to business toppling regimes militarily.
No, it's not the best deal. Yes, there is room for improvement. But gee, it's a start.
As some very famous once said, "All we are saying is give peace a chance."
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
34
And I believe that person was shot and killed...worked well for him.
So was Martin Luther King. So was Ghandi. So was Abraham Lincoln. So was Yitzchak Rabin. Mr. Lennon was in excellent, albeit tragic, company.
All _they_ were saying was give peace a chance.
All _they_ were saying was give peace a chance.
18
As usual, Republicans are opposing the deal without offering any workable alternative. In their televised questioning of M. Kerry, I've heard the term "regime change" mentioned as well as "free democratic elections."
Iran had elections and voted out the hard-liner, Ahmadinajad. The televised ad against the agreement states that in ten years, Iran will be able to produce a bomb in two months (if I remember correctly). That seems grossly inaccurate. Unfortunately, there have been no rebuttals to this claim in the media.
It seems that they want a war with Iran but they don't clarify what that means. Do they think an invasion of Iran will be successful - how could they? Do they think bombing will be successful in Iran when it hasn't been anywhere else?
They should spell out in detail what their plan is.
Iran had elections and voted out the hard-liner, Ahmadinajad. The televised ad against the agreement states that in ten years, Iran will be able to produce a bomb in two months (if I remember correctly). That seems grossly inaccurate. Unfortunately, there have been no rebuttals to this claim in the media.
It seems that they want a war with Iran but they don't clarify what that means. Do they think an invasion of Iran will be successful - how could they? Do they think bombing will be successful in Iran when it hasn't been anywhere else?
They should spell out in detail what their plan is.
52
R, they really can't because they don't have a plan. All they have is verbal gobbledygook to work up their base, who don't understand it anyway.
7
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for a clear and dispassionate precis of the pending Congressional action on this fraught issue. We once elected, long ago it seems, representatives to Congress whose sole agenda was honorable and responsible service, Now, with serious issues crowding the calendar, the House and Senate are peopled with uneducated ideologues. This agreement, ratified or no, will come to fruition regardless. Those in Congress have a duty to serve the nation's greater interests, their constituents notwithstanding. They should be equipped with enough erudition and worldly sophistication to conclude that the perfect is the enemy of the good. This means not allowing mean-spirited ideologues (foreign or domestic) to frustrate the difficult work of statecraft and negotiation in the service of their narrow, particular interests.
40
As far as I can see the fear that Iran will make a bomb is a totally phony issue. They denied that they want to and even the CIA agreed with that.
4
The basic difference is between simplistic, reactive analysis (Republican & some Democrats) and nuanced, complicated analysis (the Administration). Saying "no" is simple, and plays well in 15-second sound bites on the TV "news." Understanding the full nature and context of the agreement, and especially the consequences of the absence of an agreement, is harder for constituents with short attention spans and bumper sticker philosophies.
I congratulate the Administration on being grown-ups. On persevering with the difficult but productive process of negotiations and (even more) with understanding the importance of global consensus-building. The US no longer has the power (and it was never a good idea in the first place) for us to be the dictator of international policies and "rule enforcement."
I condemn those whose political goals (or their lack of intelligence or information) orient them to banal and short-sighted reactions to this agreement. They advance their political careers within the confines of their low-information constituent bases, and create a far more dangerous and unpredictable world.
I congratulate the Administration on being grown-ups. On persevering with the difficult but productive process of negotiations and (even more) with understanding the importance of global consensus-building. The US no longer has the power (and it was never a good idea in the first place) for us to be the dictator of international policies and "rule enforcement."
I condemn those whose political goals (or their lack of intelligence or information) orient them to banal and short-sighted reactions to this agreement. They advance their political careers within the confines of their low-information constituent bases, and create a far more dangerous and unpredictable world.
123
Levin should pickup the phone and call Schumer. The deal will prevail since it is unlikely that Obama's veto of a repeal by Congress can be overcome. However, those voting against the deal will go down in history as fools and Democrats should not be part of that collection. The naysaysers will be lumped with those who voted against the US joining the League of Nations (who unfortunately prevailed). Repealing this deal will be a disaster for US diplomacy. It will convince the rest of the world that the US style of government is dysfunctional and there is no point including it in any serious negotiations.
350
Perhaps the Saudi's don't like being cut out of the pipeline that circumvents them. And perhaps the Saudi's oil fields are not what they used to be. With the population growth and the lack of water, food and jobs for the population, brought about my abundant oil, all of the Middle East is scrambling to get a footing back. Oil and gas and their pipelines will be a blip soon in how we produce energy. Iran knew it and wanted to develop nuclear energy. Abundant oil kept everyone's coffers full for a long time. But this era is drawing to a close. Oil and gas are celebrating their last hurrah. And with that, we can then understand that the fighting in the Middle East is now over what is left. Soon, wars will become silent, as silent as the solar panels would be on everyone's roofs.
53
It is important to note that the Saudis have not allowed independent reviews of their true oil reserves for years . . . .
2
"...far better than an alternative scenario where international sanctions would fray and “support from even our best allies if we move to the military option would be less likely"
Unilateralist policy by the GOP led us into the Iraq War, justified by a faked analysis of WMDs and encouraged by the Saudis. Now they appear supremely confident that international sanctions can be maintained against Iraq if we walk away from an internationally negotiated deal. But China in particular, with a sizeable appetite for oil and trade, would likely use the collapse of an agreement to drop sanctions. And then we would have neither agreement or sanctions, but only the military option, a familiar GOP playbook.
Unilateralist policy by the GOP led us into the Iraq War, justified by a faked analysis of WMDs and encouraged by the Saudis. Now they appear supremely confident that international sanctions can be maintained against Iraq if we walk away from an internationally negotiated deal. But China in particular, with a sizeable appetite for oil and trade, would likely use the collapse of an agreement to drop sanctions. And then we would have neither agreement or sanctions, but only the military option, a familiar GOP playbook.
178
I'm a liberal Democrat, and as such, even though the Repubicans are overwhelmingly war mongers, the truth is, both parties participated in the run up to war in the Middle East.
57
I believe the Saudis were against the invasion of Iraq. The only Arab country in favor of it was Kuwait having been invaded years earlier. Saddam maintained minority Sunni control of majority Shiites.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_p...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_p...
We saw how well the GOP playbook worked last time: 4,500 American dead, 25,000 American wounded (and whose care has been cheapjacked by these same "chickenhawks"), 600,000 Iraqi dead, the cavalier dismemberment of the Iraqi Army (the ONLY continuous power base in the country since 1920), which facilitated the appearance of Al Quaeda in Iraq and ISIS...AND the shift in regional power to Iran, which Iraq had been containing through a bloody, long war.
And these same GOP "chickenhawks" who saw no military service themselves, but repeatedly redeployed our troops, call for the same thing here because this is what their money masters (both corporate and individual) want. But these money masters are shortsighted, and if we return to an unsuccessful war strategy and it backfires, the GOP will find a new victim class to blame. They already demonize women, Muslims, LGBTQ people, poor and elderly Americans, and African-Americans. They can turn against the traditional scapegoat--Jews.
The GOP copied Germany's playbook from 1933-42 before (9/11 as the DESIRED, albeit belated, trigger for attacking a former ally based on lies); unlike Germany, the victims haven't turned into the victors...yet.
And these same GOP "chickenhawks" who saw no military service themselves, but repeatedly redeployed our troops, call for the same thing here because this is what their money masters (both corporate and individual) want. But these money masters are shortsighted, and if we return to an unsuccessful war strategy and it backfires, the GOP will find a new victim class to blame. They already demonize women, Muslims, LGBTQ people, poor and elderly Americans, and African-Americans. They can turn against the traditional scapegoat--Jews.
The GOP copied Germany's playbook from 1933-42 before (9/11 as the DESIRED, albeit belated, trigger for attacking a former ally based on lies); unlike Germany, the victims haven't turned into the victors...yet.
10
Has anyone else ever noticed that the thoughtful, probing people of the world tend to be quiet and go about their business in a diligent manner? And then there are the willfully stupid, the barbarians, who are always loud, coarse and...manipulative. The Donald. Tom Cotton. Ted Cruz.