The aforementioned steps are a form of creeping provocation. Winning the war of words is not the best use of elements of national power against Iran. In fact, leaving all options on the table without broadcasting intentions is a more effective foreign policy strategy.
1
Mr. Burns urges the president to increase America's already immense security commitment to Israel in the wake of the Iran deal. This is the common pose of those who find it convenient to approve the deal but want to maintain their bona fides with the Right. But let's think about this for a moment. The main reason for the deal is that it protects Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran. Israeli generals understand this because it allows them to reallocate their resources more effectively. The deal strengthens Israeli security rather than weakens it. So why does the United States need to "compensate" Israel, aside that is from assuaging political egos. As to the 15 year limit, a lot of things can happen in 15 years. Fifteen years ago was before 9/11, before the Iraq invasion, before the Afghan war, before a lot of things that could not have been predicted. Looking ahead, the ayatollah will die, nuclear power may fall out of favor, Iran may mellow--or it may not. The deal is a gamble, but a reasonable one.
9
Shoulder to shoulder with the warmonger Netanyahu. Forget it. My respect for Obama will go down if he does that. Let Netanyahu twist in the wind - that is what he deserves.
2
This is all very nice and diplomatic, blah, blah, blah. The part that does not compute, however, is suggesting that Obama go to Israel and stand-side-by-side with Netanyahu against Iran, etc. Netanyahu came to the US to stand side by side with the Republicans, has disrespected Obama on this and other occasions and more importantly has been the principal obstacle to mid-east peace.
Why would Obama reward this kind of behavior from someone whose best interests are not those of the United States or Obama, let alone Israel. If there is a trip to be made, Netanyahu is the one that needs to make it, preferably with hat in hand.
Why would Obama reward this kind of behavior from someone whose best interests are not those of the United States or Obama, let alone Israel. If there is a trip to be made, Netanyahu is the one that needs to make it, preferably with hat in hand.
12
It is time to get tough on Israel
2
US Jews - You support Democrats overwhelmingly. You voted for President Obama overwhelmingly. Israel overwhelmingly despises this 'deal', just as does the US population. Enjoy being out of touch with reality? Now watch the fruits of your support, as Iran goes on a $150,000,000,000.00 spending spree.
"A strong symbolic step would be for Mr. Obama to travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr. Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran."
That's when I stopped reading. Just to reflect on the writers political idiocy.
The fact is, with friends like Netanyahu, who needs enemies?
That's when I stopped reading. Just to reflect on the writers political idiocy.
The fact is, with friends like Netanyahu, who needs enemies?
3
Mr. Burns apparently has a favorable bias for the horrors that the Middle East in the form of Israel has visited on the United States. Far from needing to "get tough" with Iran, as he recommends, it would be more intelligent and effective to get tough with Israel about failing to follow United Nations directives that call for it getting back within its borders and stopping the exploitation of the Palestinian people. With a background of billions wasted in Iraq, millions of refugees wandering Europe in search of a place to live, and Israel farther from its originally sought homeland than ever before, this is no time for getting tough with Iran, the only apparently peaceful nation In the Middle East.
1
I am disappointed to read that Mr. Burns wants President Obama to initiate closing the gap between himself and Prime Minister Netanyahu - and take the lead in doing so.
Should it not be the other way 'round?
Mr. Netanyahu has aligned himself with the political foes of President Obama from day one of President Obama's administration, even "betting" against his re-election in 2012.
I believe the Iran diplomatic agreement is a good agreement, and I want to see Mr. Netanyahu acknowledge this publicly, with Mr. Obama at his side.
Should it not be the other way 'round?
Mr. Netanyahu has aligned himself with the political foes of President Obama from day one of President Obama's administration, even "betting" against his re-election in 2012.
I believe the Iran diplomatic agreement is a good agreement, and I want to see Mr. Netanyahu acknowledge this publicly, with Mr. Obama at his side.
3
I don't think Mr. Obama needs your "wisdom." He is handling the situation very well.
9
Fait accompli: Iran will have a nuclear weapon in the next 10 years. I believe everyone remembers North Korea and the restrictions were not nearly as lose as these are for Iran.
With that in mind, the questions become:
- How does the world deal with a nuclear armed Middle East as Saudi Arabi has already started talks with Russia and Pakistan on gaining the necessary nuclear technology?
- When Iran has a nuclear weapon, how do countries such as Israel handle Hezbollah since they are a proxy for Iran and could potentially gain nuclear weapons (in addition to the fact their funding is going to increase exponentially with the sanctions coming off)?
- With substantial additional funds, how does this impact Northern Iraqi (Kurdish area) and Syria - this gives Iran indirect access to the Mediterranean. Something they need for long-term control in the Middle East. Syria and Iraqi become the future "battleground" for the Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The rightful argument all along was Israel. If there was no deal, at some point Israel would be forced to take action as Iran is never going to stop trying to acquire nuclear weapons. If that happens a war is inevitable based on a Jewish country attacking a Muslim country. Side note: remember, Iran says it's intent is for peaceful nuclear technology but they have enough oil and gas for 100+ years so nuclear technology is not needed in any capacity.
The agreement is cover for the eventual inevitability of Iran obtaining Nuclear Weapons
With that in mind, the questions become:
- How does the world deal with a nuclear armed Middle East as Saudi Arabi has already started talks with Russia and Pakistan on gaining the necessary nuclear technology?
- When Iran has a nuclear weapon, how do countries such as Israel handle Hezbollah since they are a proxy for Iran and could potentially gain nuclear weapons (in addition to the fact their funding is going to increase exponentially with the sanctions coming off)?
- With substantial additional funds, how does this impact Northern Iraqi (Kurdish area) and Syria - this gives Iran indirect access to the Mediterranean. Something they need for long-term control in the Middle East. Syria and Iraqi become the future "battleground" for the Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The rightful argument all along was Israel. If there was no deal, at some point Israel would be forced to take action as Iran is never going to stop trying to acquire nuclear weapons. If that happens a war is inevitable based on a Jewish country attacking a Muslim country. Side note: remember, Iran says it's intent is for peaceful nuclear technology but they have enough oil and gas for 100+ years so nuclear technology is not needed in any capacity.
The agreement is cover for the eventual inevitability of Iran obtaining Nuclear Weapons
1
Iran will go nuclear someday.
Why?
Because Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. An unstable Pakistan to the east, Russia to the north, and American occupying forces to the west.
Despite this, the nuclear accord is worth supporting in the reasonable belief that in 15 years a younger generation of Iranians, less hostile to the West, will have taken control. Rule by ayatollahs has been a disaster for this ancient and cultured nation, and will be history some day soon. The nuclear accord will help keep the peace until then.
Why?
Because Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. An unstable Pakistan to the east, Russia to the north, and American occupying forces to the west.
Despite this, the nuclear accord is worth supporting in the reasonable belief that in 15 years a younger generation of Iranians, less hostile to the West, will have taken control. Rule by ayatollahs has been a disaster for this ancient and cultured nation, and will be history some day soon. The nuclear accord will help keep the peace until then.
2
It's not time yet to discuss the next steps on Iran because this deal can be yet denounced by Congress if the Jewish lobby presses it strong enough and even Obama cannot help it.
So Iran is like some bad kid Burns is going to treat with tough love?
2
Silly me. When I saw that Mr. Burns was urging the U.S. to undertake "coercive diplomacy" in the region I fist thought he meant using our leverage to reign in Saudi Arabia's support for terrorism and forcing Israel to come to terms with the Palestinians.
11
Although I do not agree with you, Mr. Burns, in your assessment of the agreement, I thought your opinion was well written and I agree with you that Obama must now not waffle. He must be either yea or nay and be clear in his intent. Only in that way, will he win over both parties (somewhat) and be remembered as one President that held off Nuclear proliferation.
2
Just a thought- one possible (likely?) outcome is that after 15 years of trading freely with the west, acquiring a taste for its electronics and other luxuries, the PEOPLE of Iran will do whatever it takes to keep that trade open? naive? maybe. of course we survived with a nuclear soviet union, and once the east began to acquire a taste for what the west had, the people eventually forced their government to abandon marxism for free trade with the west.
This doesn't mean that we don't have to watch for Iran's hegemonic nature, but this deal allows the west to interact more with the people of iran, the best antidote to war and terrorism in the region.
This doesn't mean that we don't have to watch for Iran's hegemonic nature, but this deal allows the west to interact more with the people of iran, the best antidote to war and terrorism in the region.
8
"His more important aim, looking beyond the vote, is to win the long-term struggle with Iran for power in the Middle East...."
I do not even begin to understand what this passage means other than that the United States needs to be starting and waging long term wars against any country which has actual political-economic interests in the region in which it is located. I find this column ridiculously belligerent as foreign policy.
I do not even begin to understand what this passage means other than that the United States needs to be starting and waging long term wars against any country which has actual political-economic interests in the region in which it is located. I find this column ridiculously belligerent as foreign policy.
6
Doesn't resolve the Israeli occupation and continued land grab from the Palestinians that is against our values or use to be. Use further Israeli support guarantees to achieve a two state solution and Netanyahu's support for the nuclear agreement.
All of the suggestions keep us embroiled in the M.E. which has cost us $4.4 trillion in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if paid now; interest on the borrowed money could total in trillions as well over time.
Lost opportunity cost is large as well. Positive results from our efforts in the M.E. are difficult to see, adverse effects are more obvious. How have we justified continued "leadership in the M.E.?
Isn't the big game being play in East Asia, not the M.E.?
All of the suggestions keep us embroiled in the M.E. which has cost us $4.4 trillion in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if paid now; interest on the borrowed money could total in trillions as well over time.
Lost opportunity cost is large as well. Positive results from our efforts in the M.E. are difficult to see, adverse effects are more obvious. How have we justified continued "leadership in the M.E.?
Isn't the big game being play in East Asia, not the M.E.?
4
Why does Iran need an ICBM? They plan to obliterate israel. They have the missiles to do that. Is their ICBM target the United States?
Keep your eye on the prize, Nick. Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon now and in the future is the paramount objective and yes, the Obama administration and his successors should have a foreign policy to assure that main objective.
But your call for "coercive diplomacy" is exactly what got us into a mess with the Truman Doctrine, enabling future neocons to justify 'limited' wars with cloudy objectives all in the name of battling the communist 'menace'. It resulted in tens of thousands of deaths of American troops later to be officially admitted as 'mistakes' after the fact.
I know it sounds counterintuitive in Washington foreign policy round tables and dinners but perhaps what America needs is to practice more patience and humility instead of making bellicose declarations about areas just outside of what was recently concluded.
But your call for "coercive diplomacy" is exactly what got us into a mess with the Truman Doctrine, enabling future neocons to justify 'limited' wars with cloudy objectives all in the name of battling the communist 'menace'. It resulted in tens of thousands of deaths of American troops later to be officially admitted as 'mistakes' after the fact.
I know it sounds counterintuitive in Washington foreign policy round tables and dinners but perhaps what America needs is to practice more patience and humility instead of making bellicose declarations about areas just outside of what was recently concluded.
13
Clearly Mr. Burns has more knowledge on this than I do, and I respect all he said 100%.
However - it seems the one very important thing - I did not see in his assessment of our relationship with Iran is this, using this profound and UNIFIED step of all the worlds major nations to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb, as a stepping stone towards creating a more trusting inter-personal relationship between all the worlds nations and Iran in all areas, particulary economic.
And attempting this building of relationship knowing full well that in Iran itself as in the United States and Israel, there are many who would welcome that kind of relationship, and many, who would not. And bringing to that relationship building effort, the same determination and clear headedness that gave the world this nuclear deal.
However - it seems the one very important thing - I did not see in his assessment of our relationship with Iran is this, using this profound and UNIFIED step of all the worlds major nations to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb, as a stepping stone towards creating a more trusting inter-personal relationship between all the worlds nations and Iran in all areas, particulary economic.
And attempting this building of relationship knowing full well that in Iran itself as in the United States and Israel, there are many who would welcome that kind of relationship, and many, who would not. And bringing to that relationship building effort, the same determination and clear headedness that gave the world this nuclear deal.
1
In the 1950's the CIA engineered the assassination of Iran's moderate leader because it thought he was getting too chummy with the Soviet Union. We then put in the Shah's brutal dictatorship, which was friendly to us. The Iranians know this. How would we react to Iran's secret service assassinating a U. S. President? We'd have declared war in them and inflicted heavy damage and killed a lot of people. It is not so far out for Iranians to regard us with hostility. In spite of the current (and to me, frightening) dictatorship, perhaps - just perhaps- some degree of diplomacy might encourage some more moderate behavior back toward us it's worth a try.
5
I don't recognize the President whom this author suggests can and should do these forceful things, President Obama is who he is...No more red lines, everyone knows it's just talk.
1
Dear Mr. Burns
You insult my intelligence as well as the intelligence of all the other readers of this article. For those that don't understand the Middle East, Iran was already a major power once before. They were the Persian Empire. The Iranians have be able to hold their culture and civilization together for 5000 years. There are only a few civilizations on this planet that can make that claim. As far as Iran's military prowess goes, the Iranians have not be involved in a war outside their boarders since 500BC give or take a few years. It is not their style. I might also point out the the Iranians not the Israelis were the first democratically elected government in the Middle East in the 1950s, until it was overthrown by the British and the Americans. Just think of what the Middle East might be today if we just stayed out of it. So step back a minute, maybe the Iranians know something we don't. They got the P5+1 to the table, negotiated a fair deal and in the end will walk away the winners. I am sure much of what they have learned comes from their history. If you look back at American history, it is littered with one war after war. Remember "those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it"
You insult my intelligence as well as the intelligence of all the other readers of this article. For those that don't understand the Middle East, Iran was already a major power once before. They were the Persian Empire. The Iranians have be able to hold their culture and civilization together for 5000 years. There are only a few civilizations on this planet that can make that claim. As far as Iran's military prowess goes, the Iranians have not be involved in a war outside their boarders since 500BC give or take a few years. It is not their style. I might also point out the the Iranians not the Israelis were the first democratically elected government in the Middle East in the 1950s, until it was overthrown by the British and the Americans. Just think of what the Middle East might be today if we just stayed out of it. So step back a minute, maybe the Iranians know something we don't. They got the P5+1 to the table, negotiated a fair deal and in the end will walk away the winners. I am sure much of what they have learned comes from their history. If you look back at American history, it is littered with one war after war. Remember "those who don't know their history are bound to repeat it"
9
"Iranians have be able to hold their culture and civilization together for 5000 years."
The Muslim religion, which nowadays defines Iranian culture, is less than 1,500 yrs old. Modern Islamic Iran has little connection with ancient Persia.
The Muslim religion, which nowadays defines Iranian culture, is less than 1,500 yrs old. Modern Islamic Iran has little connection with ancient Persia.
1
Mr. Burns' article reads as if written in the 1980's by a person who has learned little since.
'A strong symbolic step would be for Mr. Obama to travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr. Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran' - the suggestion is incredibly ridiculous. After Netanyahu has done everything he can to insult President Obama? As Netanyahu fights President Obama's efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program? After Netanyahu has inserted himself into US domestic policy, in a manner which many of us find outrageous, to oppose President Obama's policies?
Second, unlike the 1980s, the US is no longer hostage to Middle East oil. Automobile fuel-efficiency is vastly higher than in the 1980's (thanks to technical advances in power trains) and scheduled to go far higher still, to the region of 55 mpg. We will need less oil. Domestic fracking is displacing the demand for imported oil. Mr. Burns still thinks that our Middle East policy should be determined by oil supply. Mr. Burns' view is out-of-date, stuck in the 1980s.
'A strong symbolic step would be for Mr. Obama to travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr. Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran' - the suggestion is incredibly ridiculous. After Netanyahu has done everything he can to insult President Obama? As Netanyahu fights President Obama's efforts to curb Iran's nuclear program? After Netanyahu has inserted himself into US domestic policy, in a manner which many of us find outrageous, to oppose President Obama's policies?
Second, unlike the 1980s, the US is no longer hostage to Middle East oil. Automobile fuel-efficiency is vastly higher than in the 1980's (thanks to technical advances in power trains) and scheduled to go far higher still, to the region of 55 mpg. We will need less oil. Domestic fracking is displacing the demand for imported oil. Mr. Burns still thinks that our Middle East policy should be determined by oil supply. Mr. Burns' view is out-of-date, stuck in the 1980s.
12
Get tough on Iran... Get TOUGH on Iran?
Foolishness. This President and his supporters have never been willing to put pressure on totalitarian regimes. Look at Obama's record in North Korea. In Cuba. In Syria.
Nick, stay in academia where no one listens - where you cannot hurt anyone. Leave real-life issues like this one to more serious people.
Foolishness. This President and his supporters have never been willing to put pressure on totalitarian regimes. Look at Obama's record in North Korea. In Cuba. In Syria.
Nick, stay in academia where no one listens - where you cannot hurt anyone. Leave real-life issues like this one to more serious people.
2
The Truman Doctrine was a hyperventilated response to Republican criticism over the unloved Yalta Agreement. This massively committed to the US to military containment and confrontation with the USSR and allied national liberation mov'ts. The Carter Doctrine was a proclaimed in a moment of perceived US weakness after the Iranian Revolution and the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan. Carter had totally mishandled the fall of the Shah and made the idiotic mistake of letting the Shah into the US thus letting Ayatollah Khomeini to win the Iranian Revolution. The Soviet invasion was a direct consequence of the destabilization of their border caused by the Iranian Revolution. The Soviet invasion turned into a tragic boondoggle and hastened the regime's demise. What we have now is an opportunity for a peaceful evolution of US/Iran relations.
3
"To begin this effort, the administration should commit to a policy of coercive diplomacy — major steps to keep Iran on the defensive and push back against its growing power in the Middle East."
Burns cluelessly exhibiting his cluelessness, have we learned nothing in the last seventy years. Seriously? He wants to continue with the John Wayne school yard punk posturing? To what purpose? To show the world we are still trapped in the mind set of a developmentally impaired overly aggressive child. The lack of sophistication in American policy is truly disturbing and perpetually disappointing. When are we going to see John Kerry get a little credit for acting in an informed intelligent way in search of achievable practical goals.
Would it not make more sense to encourage/push the nations of the ME to find common cause. There has to be more than a few ME policy leaders who realize they are heading toward irretrievable regional disaster. And wherever their views they have to be pushed toward mutual cooperation. Do we really want to perpetually be the cop presiding over several bad neighbors whose citizens are streaming over EU borders in desperate fear of religous and nationalist insanity.
It seems that if the situation is not brought under some degree of control the entire region will have to be locked down, sealed while they act out their horrible destiny.
Burns cluelessly exhibiting his cluelessness, have we learned nothing in the last seventy years. Seriously? He wants to continue with the John Wayne school yard punk posturing? To what purpose? To show the world we are still trapped in the mind set of a developmentally impaired overly aggressive child. The lack of sophistication in American policy is truly disturbing and perpetually disappointing. When are we going to see John Kerry get a little credit for acting in an informed intelligent way in search of achievable practical goals.
Would it not make more sense to encourage/push the nations of the ME to find common cause. There has to be more than a few ME policy leaders who realize they are heading toward irretrievable regional disaster. And wherever their views they have to be pushed toward mutual cooperation. Do we really want to perpetually be the cop presiding over several bad neighbors whose citizens are streaming over EU borders in desperate fear of religous and nationalist insanity.
It seems that if the situation is not brought under some degree of control the entire region will have to be locked down, sealed while they act out their horrible destiny.
2
President Obama is in his final 18-months. By any measure, internationally, he is a lame duck. There is no question that winning over enough Democrats to sustain a veto, is a victory. It is a hard fought victory. In the end, I think he has spent the political capital he was going to spend on this, and I think Nick Burns is mistaken if he thinks the President will want to, or even be able to, more. I believe he will focus on domestic and some key signature issues: criminal justice reform; climate change; campaign finance; and, a bi-partisan infrastructure bill. I don't see the President focusing on this any more.
1
What is it with American diplomats and their Pavlovian response to drop to their knees and lick the shoes of militant Likudniks like Netanyahu who have played a central role in destabilizing the region and promoting enmity with 1.5 billion Muslims?
4
The republican neocons don't need to feel so sad if the vote goes through. With any luck, with God's help, a Republican can win the white house. Then they can see that the nuclear agreement doesn't totally prevent them from starting a war with Iran. Imagine going several years without at least the opportunity to blow up a bunch of people and get our servicemen and servicewomen killed in a stupid war. What a tragedy!
It is disappointing that Mr.Burns ignores one of the biggest sources of tension in the Middle East - the lack of a homeland for the Palestinians. Imagine Israel and an independent Palestine living in peace. It would undercut the extreme elements on both sides - be it Hamas or Hezbollah or right wing Israelis. If France and Germany can achieve peace after decades of hostility and 3 wars, there is no reason why a deal cannot be negotiated between Israel and Palestine. It however requires statesmanship - something that is sorely missing in this world.
3
Second, Mr. Obama could state in unmistakably clear terms that the United States would use military force to strike Iran should it violate the nuclear agreement and drive toward a nuclear weapon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You jest, right?
All European allies are rushing to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Iran, and are unlikely to support any jingoistic rhetoric from the Nobel-peace prize winning architect of this agreement.
Also, if Obama is going to spike the football on the basis of this razor thin support in the Congress for his deal, he might as well try dancing on the head of a pin.
Pyrrhic victory.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You jest, right?
All European allies are rushing to establish diplomatic and trade relations with Iran, and are unlikely to support any jingoistic rhetoric from the Nobel-peace prize winning architect of this agreement.
Also, if Obama is going to spike the football on the basis of this razor thin support in the Congress for his deal, he might as well try dancing on the head of a pin.
Pyrrhic victory.
1
Stand shoulder to shoulder with Netanyahu? Are you kidding me? Netanyahu can come here and grovel for the renewal of the military assistance agreement.
7
What moderate arab states? You people and the media keep calling the agreement with iran imperfect. You live in a dream world-in the real world there is nothing perfect, much less agreements among nations with differing outlooks.
3
The writer advocates the kind of policy that is clearly failing in Ukraine. So why not another failure? Obama standing next to Netanyahu, the guy who insulted him & the sovereignty of the US: is it a joke?
Iran, a not very strong country, is contained by American power that is enough. Obama should now acknowledge that Russia is a de facto ally in Syria against ISIS and should tell Israel to get serious about the Palestinian issue.
All this talk about moderate Arab states is really another semantic trick: Saudi Arabia shows its moderation in beheadings? And Egypt in civil rights violations?
The Iran deal shows it is possible to negotiate with rivals or former enemies. Israel should do the same with Palestinians (notably for a viable two state solution--see Shlomo Ben Ami & the Geneva agreement-- but also to stop ISIS getting a foothold in Gaza).
The US should also choose the same approach toward Russia, notably to stop China from rising even higher thanks to its alliance with energy-rich but manpower poor Russia. Israel would also benefit from a US-Russia deal which could break the deadlock in Syria.
The US, Israel, Iran stand to benefit more from diplomacy than from saber rattling or worse saber using.
Iran, a not very strong country, is contained by American power that is enough. Obama should now acknowledge that Russia is a de facto ally in Syria against ISIS and should tell Israel to get serious about the Palestinian issue.
All this talk about moderate Arab states is really another semantic trick: Saudi Arabia shows its moderation in beheadings? And Egypt in civil rights violations?
The Iran deal shows it is possible to negotiate with rivals or former enemies. Israel should do the same with Palestinians (notably for a viable two state solution--see Shlomo Ben Ami & the Geneva agreement-- but also to stop ISIS getting a foothold in Gaza).
The US should also choose the same approach toward Russia, notably to stop China from rising even higher thanks to its alliance with energy-rich but manpower poor Russia. Israel would also benefit from a US-Russia deal which could break the deadlock in Syria.
The US, Israel, Iran stand to benefit more from diplomacy than from saber rattling or worse saber using.
3
Mr. Burns's retro vision of Middle Eastern policy is a non-starter. Threatening Iran publically, embracing Netanyahu should not be President's Obama's next move. Those actions in the past have lead us where we are today.
10
Let's work the business side first. Iranian businessmen, though usually hardliners politically, will see their efforts go no where if they act as spoiled Persian princes. Once they work with American businessmen they will imbibe some of our qualities: fairness, honesty, and frankness. They can't honestly believe we are the Great Satan after that.
If the Iranian government pursues warfare with the west, it will be in direct opposition to their business interests. I don't see the Iranian government turning its back on profit and growth, economically and culturally, to fight a war that should have ended decades ago.
If the Iranian government pursues warfare with the west, it will be in direct opposition to their business interests. I don't see the Iranian government turning its back on profit and growth, economically and culturally, to fight a war that should have ended decades ago.
2
Now it's time to get tough on Iran?
Aren't we past that? How do you get tough on them when they have almost 30 days advance notice of "spot inspections?"
Aren't we past that? How do you get tough on them when they have almost 30 days advance notice of "spot inspections?"
Like Mr. Burns, I am in favor of the deal that has been negotiated. As to his recommendation to form a strong regional coalition including moderate Arab states; other than Jordan, are there any?
2
Middle East foreign policy 'experts' like Mr. Burns are essentially becoming -- or will soon become -- passé in the emerging realities and US energy and security interests there.
They should probably go commiserate with the Condoleeza Rice-type Cold War, Soviet experts (if there are any left).
They should probably go commiserate with the Condoleeza Rice-type Cold War, Soviet experts (if there are any left).
2
Would anyone take such declarations by President Obama seriously?
Fifth, the United States should insist and ensure Israel dismantle its nuclear weapons.
3
Lets think about this. The countries surrounding Iran are loaded with weapons (that we have sold them or given them). They have military forces. They are the ones threatened by Iran, we are not. If Iran attacked anyone with a nuc they would be toast immediately. Again, its up to the region states to deal with Iran and ISIS not us. We are not the worlds policeman although the military Industrial guys would love us to be.
2
"A strong symbolic step would be for Mr. Obama to travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr. Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran".
I find it quite difficult to fathom how a man with Mr. Burns' impeccable background in education and foreign service - Boston College, John's Hopkins, Peace Corps, Harvard, would make such a naïve statement. What on earth possessed him? Maybe (and I hope) he was just having an historical memory lapse concerning Mr. Netanyahu.
I find it quite difficult to fathom how a man with Mr. Burns' impeccable background in education and foreign service - Boston College, John's Hopkins, Peace Corps, Harvard, would make such a naïve statement. What on earth possessed him? Maybe (and I hope) he was just having an historical memory lapse concerning Mr. Netanyahu.
7
Burns’ first two ideas are worth considering, but not the third, because the USA should not be in thrall to the Jewish state.
2
It appears to me that Mr. Burns is far too concerned about placating Israel for the probable failure by hawks to block the Iran nuclear deal. Why should we be providing them additional military aid in response to an agreement which lessens their military threat from Iran? Considering that this is a state with at least 100 nuclear weapon and also by far the strongest conventional military power in the region, why do we need to further increase our already huge and costly aid to Israel? I find his proposal to have President Obama travel to Israel to stand "side by side" with Netanyahu absolutely bizarre. After all, Netanyahu did everything in his power to sabotage Obama's policy and in the most flagrantly tactless ways.
Mr. Burns embodies the coterie of Middle East diplomats who treat Israel as a special case and have served as enablers of its quasi-apartheid actions that have long damaged American foreign policy interests. Such entrenched attitudes serve neither American or Israeli long term interests.
Mr. Burns embodies the coterie of Middle East diplomats who treat Israel as a special case and have served as enablers of its quasi-apartheid actions that have long damaged American foreign policy interests. Such entrenched attitudes serve neither American or Israeli long term interests.
9
Burns confuses "should do" with "can do", thus ignoring the latter. For one, his assertion of allies with which to forge a containment policy against Iran is predicated on unlikely long-term stability in those countries and sufficient congruency of our other interests with theirs to maintain a collective Iranian policy.
Second, Burns underestimates the role of American domestic politics, essentially glossing over the lack of discussion among Republicans, as well as the dissolution of the traditional bipartisan consensus on broad foreign policy goals.
Third, his desire to affirm American security guarantees in the region lacks any detail as to how one might create the domestic political will for continued war in the region with ill-defined enemies, ill-defined goals, and no plausible exit strategy.
Fourth, Burns ignores the inevitable blowback and unintended consequences of such a policy, such amply demonstrated by our invasion of Iraq.
If Burns wants his proposals to be taken seriously, he needs to present a plausibly achievable, realistic objective. Then he needs to explain how we will pay for them in both treasure and blood. Unlike the Iraq War, America will not support a massive, unfunded venture. And for an open-ended military commitment to be publicly acceptable, the draft will have to be reinstituted. If the American public will not tax itself and provide fighters from a broad swathe of society, no other country or non-state foe will take our threat seriously.
Second, Burns underestimates the role of American domestic politics, essentially glossing over the lack of discussion among Republicans, as well as the dissolution of the traditional bipartisan consensus on broad foreign policy goals.
Third, his desire to affirm American security guarantees in the region lacks any detail as to how one might create the domestic political will for continued war in the region with ill-defined enemies, ill-defined goals, and no plausible exit strategy.
Fourth, Burns ignores the inevitable blowback and unintended consequences of such a policy, such amply demonstrated by our invasion of Iraq.
If Burns wants his proposals to be taken seriously, he needs to present a plausibly achievable, realistic objective. Then he needs to explain how we will pay for them in both treasure and blood. Unlike the Iraq War, America will not support a massive, unfunded venture. And for an open-ended military commitment to be publicly acceptable, the draft will have to be reinstituted. If the American public will not tax itself and provide fighters from a broad swathe of society, no other country or non-state foe will take our threat seriously.
4
" the administration could reaffirm America’s commitment to form a strong regional coalition with moderate Arab states, Turkey, the European allies"...? We tried this in Operation Iraqi Freedom under George W. Bush. Now the region is in chaos. We were told fight them there so we don't have to fight them here, now they are coming here because they are fighting each other there. Even the lightly populated nation of Libya can't have peace without a dictator. Our values and our systems don't work there.
1
I fear an Iranian nuclear weapon as much as I fear everybody else's nuclear weapons. Firing such a weapon has long since been recognized as an act of suicide. And, while individual terrorists might court suicide, large and influential nations don't. If Obama had learned this lesson, he would have continued to squeeze Iran with sanctions until its people rose up against their despicable government. Nuclear silos should be turned into museums and tourist attractions. They are the ruins of the 20th century and, someday, will stand in place of the Roman ruins destroyed by ISIS.
Since it is claimed that you are an expert on Iran, I focus on Iran only. You must recall the 1953 coup d’état by, mainly, the United States which toppled Dr. Mossadegh’s democratically elected government. What did that produce for the U.S.? A U.S. poppet and a lot of resentments by the Iranians. 25 years later, those resentments produced the Islamic Republic of Iran. The world was different in the 19th and 20th centuries, Mr. Burns, and, maybe, there was no clear alternative to warmongering. However, just about any U.S. involvements, whether through invasion (like the Vietnam War), or coup d’état (like Iran) failed to produce anything positive for the U.S.
Mr. Bush, who wasn’t the most informed president, did not learn from the past and repeated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Threatening the Iranians is not going to get anything positive for America, period. (And of course, resentment by the Iranians is not a positive outcome!) So, it is long overdue to not be a slave to Mr. Netanyahu and his repeated lies. There is nothing Mr. Obama can do to change the mentality of Republicans and Mr. Netanyahu et al. And all your suggestions about coalitions with the Persian Gulf governments and the countries neighboring Iran; and more military aids to certain countries; sucking up to Mr. Netanyahu, etc. are simply waste of money and prestige for the U.S.
Mr. Bush, who wasn’t the most informed president, did not learn from the past and repeated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Threatening the Iranians is not going to get anything positive for America, period. (And of course, resentment by the Iranians is not a positive outcome!) So, it is long overdue to not be a slave to Mr. Netanyahu and his repeated lies. There is nothing Mr. Obama can do to change the mentality of Republicans and Mr. Netanyahu et al. And all your suggestions about coalitions with the Persian Gulf governments and the countries neighboring Iran; and more military aids to certain countries; sucking up to Mr. Netanyahu, etc. are simply waste of money and prestige for the U.S.
8
War is always a falll back option. Why not try a peaceful approach.
1
The more I read and hear about this "deal" the worse it is. Iran essentially gets hundreds of million dollars, relief from sanctions, a go ahead for continued nuclear work, virtually no "anywhere, anytime" inspections, ready access to ballistic missals, freedom to make deals with all those who want to do business with them (Russia to sell weapons systems, China to buy oil, and Europeans for those plus other products. And "secret deals" between the UN and Iran. All this guarantees them more money and more power to drag the middle east into even more chaos and to continue their world wide support of terrorism and to continue towards their goals of the elimination of Israel and the destruction of America. This is not a good deal.
What should have been done is the increase the sanctions. After all, the only reason they came to the table were the sanctions. Increasing sanctions would have kept them at the table and hiding their goals. Were they to still refuse to deal honestly with "anytime anywhere" inspections our answer could have been even more sanctions. We would have been in the drivers seat.
Obama cannot do as the writer suggests because he has already caused America to have no, nada, zip, zilch, zero real influence in the world today. The only last real allies we have are Israel and Great Britain and both are getting shakey at best. We are in very serious trouble and sinking fast.
What should have been done is the increase the sanctions. After all, the only reason they came to the table were the sanctions. Increasing sanctions would have kept them at the table and hiding their goals. Were they to still refuse to deal honestly with "anytime anywhere" inspections our answer could have been even more sanctions. We would have been in the drivers seat.
Obama cannot do as the writer suggests because he has already caused America to have no, nada, zip, zilch, zero real influence in the world today. The only last real allies we have are Israel and Great Britain and both are getting shakey at best. We are in very serious trouble and sinking fast.
Mr. Burns' past work built the crumbling edifice in the area. His current suggestions do not represent any new ideas nor do they point to any breakthroughs. Failed ideas lead to failure of programs.
2
Mr. Burns...did the Likud Party and/or AIPAC pay you to write this nonsense? Or was Bibi the ghost writer. America has done enough for Israel. It helped Israel develop its nuclear weapons factory in the Negev and sends Israel 3.5 billion dollars of "aid" every year. Let them bomb Iran. Don't send anymore American boys and girls to the Middle East to die, ever again!
6
Sorry, Mr. Burns, but the time for this discussion was 12 years ago. The US electorate is done with fear, a lesson not learned in Vietnam learned the hard way 30 years later.
6
Holy NeoCons, here we go, analysis as rant:
More Bibi love should come from Obama?
Why?
More need to align with the "moderate Arab states" pals?
Who?
Iran will be stronger than Israel in 15 years?
How?
U.S. needs to pay up and send more military to the ME?
When?
This is strategic analysis?
What?
The conventional journalistic focus on the 5 W's is so weak,
I'd give this screed an "F".
More Bibi love should come from Obama?
Why?
More need to align with the "moderate Arab states" pals?
Who?
Iran will be stronger than Israel in 15 years?
How?
U.S. needs to pay up and send more military to the ME?
When?
This is strategic analysis?
What?
The conventional journalistic focus on the 5 W's is so weak,
I'd give this screed an "F".
10
Achieving respect, fairness and welfare for the proletariat in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc is a pipedream. Invading these brutal tyranical regimes with the view of imposing such core Western values leads to the evolution of even worse regimes than those prevailing pre-invasion.
The USA and the West should focus on to understanding and solving their own countries' soluble problems not the insoluble ones of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc
As far as Iran is concerned, Mr Obama is I think, wanting to retrospectively justify the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him ( for no good reason) 6 years ago. What a price the world will pay come 2025.
The USA and the West should focus on to understanding and solving their own countries' soluble problems not the insoluble ones of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc
As far as Iran is concerned, Mr Obama is I think, wanting to retrospectively justify the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to him ( for no good reason) 6 years ago. What a price the world will pay come 2025.
1
President Obama could best use his remaining time in office by exposing and trying to curb Israel's influence in our government. I say that, knowing that I'll immediately be lumped together with racists, ant-semites, and various other bad actors. There is much about Israel that I admire. "Some of my best friends..." etc.
But by now it should be manifestly evident to even the meanest intelligence that our electoral system, in which AIPAC doles out campaign funds to politicians according to how often said pol votes in Israel's interests, is an anachronism, and has no place in American democracy. It is against our ideals and has nearly caused the US to blunder in relation to Iran. It was part of the disaster in Iraq. Change is hard, but the time has come.
But by now it should be manifestly evident to even the meanest intelligence that our electoral system, in which AIPAC doles out campaign funds to politicians according to how often said pol votes in Israel's interests, is an anachronism, and has no place in American democracy. It is against our ideals and has nearly caused the US to blunder in relation to Iran. It was part of the disaster in Iraq. Change is hard, but the time has come.
9
"Instead, on a war-and-peace issue that will affect American power in the Middle East for a generation to come, not a single one of the 301 Republicans in the Senate and House is likely to vote for the deal."
Who Really Love America?
The Senators who give 29 standing ovation to the Apartheid Israeli leader, Netanyahu, last time and 24 standing ovation this time, and shout obscenity at their own President during his speech in the Congress, are the real traitors to America. As Jon Stewart put it; “The in-chamber response to this speech was by far the longest ‘b$@&job’ a Jewish man has ever received.”
Do you know why?
Just read about how much Israeli Firster are spending to buy the US Congress. Tom Cotton is just one of the examples.
It is as if the GOP Congress does not accept President Obama as ‘the President of the US’, and wish Netanyahu was its Leader.
AIPAC is the body who can dictate the language of any legislation for the Middle East policy, and Netanyahu is the only person whom the Congress will bow to or to stoop for.
Who Really Love America?
The Senators who give 29 standing ovation to the Apartheid Israeli leader, Netanyahu, last time and 24 standing ovation this time, and shout obscenity at their own President during his speech in the Congress, are the real traitors to America. As Jon Stewart put it; “The in-chamber response to this speech was by far the longest ‘b$@&job’ a Jewish man has ever received.”
Do you know why?
Just read about how much Israeli Firster are spending to buy the US Congress. Tom Cotton is just one of the examples.
It is as if the GOP Congress does not accept President Obama as ‘the President of the US’, and wish Netanyahu was its Leader.
AIPAC is the body who can dictate the language of any legislation for the Middle East policy, and Netanyahu is the only person whom the Congress will bow to or to stoop for.
6
Remarkable naivete by Mr. Burns. After negotiating this pathetic deal ,there is not a country in the world that would take seriously a threat by Barack Obama to ever use force against the Iranians. Rather than inspiring confidence such a threat is likely to cause the Iranians and our allies to break into convulsive laughter.
1
The President used force against Libya a few years ago, in concert with other nations, to stop Qaddafi from gassing his citizens, and it worked. He is quite capable of initiating military action- except unlike several Republican hawks, he thinks before he acts, and doesn't just risk U.S. and foreign lives.
1
"Mr. Obama could state in unmistakably clear terms that the United States would use military force to strike Iran should it violate the nuclear agreement and drive toward a nuclear weapon." With all due respect to Mr. Burns, that is a stupid idea. It would lead to 10-15 continuous years of:
- Calls to war by the forces that are aligned against this deal now;
- Arguments about, "Did Iran cross the line by doing X?"; and
- Arguments about "evidence" found.
Such a statement by Obama would be basically giving a future US president the power to go to war against Iran without going through all the diplomatic options first. Remember how well that "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" worked out?
- Calls to war by the forces that are aligned against this deal now;
- Arguments about, "Did Iran cross the line by doing X?"; and
- Arguments about "evidence" found.
Such a statement by Obama would be basically giving a future US president the power to go to war against Iran without going through all the diplomatic options first. Remember how well that "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" worked out?
5
Although some of these suggestions are useful reaffirmations of U. S. policy, we have to be very careful to preserve "the coalition of the willing," i.e., the rest of the world, that supported our effort to get the Nuclear Agreement to begin with. The coalition, and particularly in Asia, signed up to keep Iran from nuclear weapons, not to support a coercivegeneral diplomacy by the United States, especially to the extent we end up being seen as Natenyahu's stooge. Announcing a "strategy." whcixh is already more or less what we are doing, for domestic political reasons compromises the basic objective of maintenance of the global alliance of convenience we have developed and puts real teeth into the Nuclear Agreement.
No question, we will be dealing with the Iran issue for many years, and deterance at the non-nuclear level is important, but please, a little subtlety!!!
No question, we will be dealing with the Iran issue for many years, and deterance at the non-nuclear level is important, but please, a little subtlety!!!
The nuclear deal does not depend upon a rapprochement with Iran and certainly does not guarantee such an outcome. But it does create a space to explore whether Iran could be coaxed into a less confrontational relationship with the West and its neighbors. Burn's recommendations would foreclose this possibility even before the ink is dry on the agreement. Instead, Obama would be wise to balance steps to reassure allies in the region with efforts to broaden the dialogue with Iran. Such an approach would require delicate diplomacy and may not succeed. But some effort to avert a decades-long sectarian Cold War in the Middle East is surely worth trying.
3
"Specifically, an unfettered Iran in 2030 would be free to reconstitute an expanded civil nuclear program. It could possibly use that program, as it has in the past, to build a covert nuclear arms effort. This is one of the deal’s major downside risks that the Obama team has struggled to counter."
Cant here be any doubt that for most Americans, the responses are either "So what?" or "Who Cares?" Every school child knows Israel has nukes; Pakistan has nukes; Russia has nukes, we have nukes, the Chinese & the Indians have nukes, North Korea has nukes as do the Brits and the French and for all we know, the Germans and the island of Tobago - so which group of suicidal nut bags will kick off the fun & games, and what, exactly, does or can anyone do about it that would make things "better" than the Iran Deal? So far, the only answer from the Israelis and the Republicans seems to be "we have to nuke them first."
Thank goodness football season is about to start again & the nation can get back to demonstrating world leadership and "American Exceptionalism."
Cant here be any doubt that for most Americans, the responses are either "So what?" or "Who Cares?" Every school child knows Israel has nukes; Pakistan has nukes; Russia has nukes, we have nukes, the Chinese & the Indians have nukes, North Korea has nukes as do the Brits and the French and for all we know, the Germans and the island of Tobago - so which group of suicidal nut bags will kick off the fun & games, and what, exactly, does or can anyone do about it that would make things "better" than the Iran Deal? So far, the only answer from the Israelis and the Republicans seems to be "we have to nuke them first."
Thank goodness football season is about to start again & the nation can get back to demonstrating world leadership and "American Exceptionalism."
Mr Obama has already stated I don't know how many times he will not let Iran get a nuclear weapon. Mr Burns writes as if he lives in some alternate universe. Reimpose sanctions with moderate Arab states and Europe, forget it, it's done. Go read the business page. Try to get the Republicans to come along. What have you been sleeping for 6 1/2 years ? They wouldn't help this President with water for a drought if he found a way to do it. Why does the NY Times print this redundant nonsense?
1
It does make sense for Barack Obama to work with Republicans on trying to contain Iran, and to work with stand side-by-side with Benjamin Netanyahu against a nuclear-armed Iran.
But the Republicans and Netanyahu are the ones who have picked up their toys and left the room in a huff. Obama was the grown-up who had to do what he could without them, with Iran and the other countries in the negotiations also acting adult.
If the GOP and Israel's Prime Minister want to improve the situation, they should quit their pouting, come back, and start talking again. Or be left behind.
But the Republicans and Netanyahu are the ones who have picked up their toys and left the room in a huff. Obama was the grown-up who had to do what he could without them, with Iran and the other countries in the negotiations also acting adult.
If the GOP and Israel's Prime Minister want to improve the situation, they should quit their pouting, come back, and start talking again. Or be left behind.
3
When the Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq and through out all the previous Saddam loyal militaries, now the core of ISIS, Iran was strengthened in the region. Now America wants to destroy ISIS which means they are siding with Iran who wants the same, i.e. strengthen the Shia Muslims in the Middle East. Israel now siding with Saudi Arabia do not want that because Iran is involved. And Saudi Arabia being a Sunni Muslim country of course silently support the ISIS which is the only viable force for Sunni Muslims in the region. The US always forget the question they should ask before any action in the Middle East, "then what ?"
1
Iran is producing Uranium Rods in the thousands of centrifuges across the country. These rods are being sold to Russia for construction of nuclear power plants of Russia's allies around the world. (BRICS) Russia is buying this material with various armaments of the latest design.
And so? What is your point? Is Russia not supposed to sell nuclear materials to other states? Should they ask permission of,the U.S. first?
1
This is a very very depressing article. For it shows how little imagination even the smartest, most dynamic members of our country's diplomatic establishment have. Note two things in particular. First, Amb Burns wants us to deepen our involvement in the Near East. Thanks, but no thanks! WE have wasted too much time, effort and money in that part of the world for too long, and to what end? We do far better to focus more on Asia, of course, and also Africa and Latin America. Second, Amb Burns is incapable of imagining that Iran can be anything but an enemy of the United States. What about imagining the possibility that it can come to be our partner, both in the Near East and in the wider international arena. Think about it: if we work toward that goal, then whether or not Iran can--like India--develop nuclear weapons fifteen years from now is need not be a worry.
4
I think that the U.S. should not specify specific conditions that will automatically cause us to go war. Each instance should be weighed on its special pros and cons. We did not attack North Korea when it became a nuclear power and North Korea is far more irrational than Iran. I would prefer to have a non-nuclear Middle East and that would include Israel giving up its nuclear weapons.
George Washington was a wise man and great leader. I believe it was he who said that the U.S. does not have permanent friends or permanent enemies but rather has permanent interests. We should not allow our permanent interests to be hijacked by any other country.
I'm talking to you, Bibi.
George Washington was a wise man and great leader. I believe it was he who said that the U.S. does not have permanent friends or permanent enemies but rather has permanent interests. We should not allow our permanent interests to be hijacked by any other country.
I'm talking to you, Bibi.
1
Well, as it now appears likely that the Democrats in the House and particularly in the Senate have decided to put their party above the national security of the United States... blood will be on their heads just as it was on Neville Chamberlain's along with the British and French at Munich in 1938.
Yes,there will be an nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Obama will be powerless to stop it. Who can still trust him when all he does is stab them in the back.
This Congressional vote is still going to be important because it will show that not only do a majority of the American people oppose it by almost 2/3 majority but the Congress is opposed to it by a large margin...
The one saving grace is that in January 2017 there will be a new President Hopefully not a Democrat...who can tear up this horrible disaster and make a new agreement. If we are lucky, Iran will not have done much damage before that with the $150 billion given it...
Yes,there will be an nuclear arms race in the Middle East and Obama will be powerless to stop it. Who can still trust him when all he does is stab them in the back.
This Congressional vote is still going to be important because it will show that not only do a majority of the American people oppose it by almost 2/3 majority but the Congress is opposed to it by a large margin...
The one saving grace is that in January 2017 there will be a new President Hopefully not a Democrat...who can tear up this horrible disaster and make a new agreement. If we are lucky, Iran will not have done much damage before that with the $150 billion given it...
I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would seek to put American troops on the ground in the midst of an internecine struggle that is raging among different factions of Islam!
This would be the most idiotic thing the US could possibly do and again and as in Viet Nam, we will be the losers!
Why are all the old neocon holdovers, from the first Bush era, making the rounds of the TV shows spouting the same inane drivel that got us into trouble in the first place? Bush, Cheney, etc., etc, should all just shut up and go away quietly before being summoned to The Hague as war criminals!
This would be the most idiotic thing the US could possibly do and again and as in Viet Nam, we will be the losers!
Why are all the old neocon holdovers, from the first Bush era, making the rounds of the TV shows spouting the same inane drivel that got us into trouble in the first place? Bush, Cheney, etc., etc, should all just shut up and go away quietly before being summoned to The Hague as war criminals!
1
Why is the Saudi government worth strengthening? Aren't they the ones that produced the 911 bombers? Don't they subscribe to a very conservative and threatening form of Islam called Wahabism? They are bombing and killing people in Yemen. Is Iran really that much worse?
N. Korea has nuclear weapons. Why is that not as bad as Iran getting them. Shouldn't we be considering attacking that country if they don't give them up?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is allowing terrorists to be based there? We invaded Afghanistan for that reason? Why not Pakistan?
Does Jimmy Carter still subscribe to the "Carter Doctrine"? If not, should we still subscribe to it? Is it still valid 40 years later?
Are the American people really cut out to preside over a world empire? It doesn't seem like its citizens think it worth the price; being unwilling to conduct the long-term occupation of distant countries, as did England, Rome, and the other great empires.
N. Korea has nuclear weapons. Why is that not as bad as Iran getting them. Shouldn't we be considering attacking that country if they don't give them up?
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is allowing terrorists to be based there? We invaded Afghanistan for that reason? Why not Pakistan?
Does Jimmy Carter still subscribe to the "Carter Doctrine"? If not, should we still subscribe to it? Is it still valid 40 years later?
Are the American people really cut out to preside over a world empire? It doesn't seem like its citizens think it worth the price; being unwilling to conduct the long-term occupation of distant countries, as did England, Rome, and the other great empires.
2
Nicolas Burns is clearly a mouthpiece of the military-industrial complex and is making a case for America to have a vast military presence in an area we (and his buddies) do not understand. Example: we allied with the Kurds to successfully fight ISIS then, minutes later, we allied with the Turks who immediately began bombing the Kurds. Burns and his millionaire friends do not even bother with any explanation as to why this area poses a military danger to America and assumes that the voters, like sheep, will follow his commands.
1
Getting more involved in the Middle East will only stoke the fires of the already blazing anti-American fires raging across the region.
Those fires cannot be put out with tanks or missiles or soldiers. They can only be put out by walking away and totally dis-engaging from the region. This won't solve the problem in 3 or 5 years but 10 or 15 years down the road we'll have a chance to look back on this period of radical Islamic anti-Americanism as a forty year aberration, much like the Cold War.
Those fires cannot be put out with tanks or missiles or soldiers. They can only be put out by walking away and totally dis-engaging from the region. This won't solve the problem in 3 or 5 years but 10 or 15 years down the road we'll have a chance to look back on this period of radical Islamic anti-Americanism as a forty year aberration, much like the Cold War.
I ask people all the time: how is supporting Israel in American's national security interests?
I still have not been given an answer that makes any sense.
Let's be clear: if there weren't so many pro-Zionist Jewish-Americans contributing vast sums of money to political candidates and pushing for American policy to favor Israel the United States would not have a terrorist problem. Call me an anti-Semite all you like but that's the plain politically incorrect truth.
I still have not been given an answer that makes any sense.
Let's be clear: if there weren't so many pro-Zionist Jewish-Americans contributing vast sums of money to political candidates and pushing for American policy to favor Israel the United States would not have a terrorist problem. Call me an anti-Semite all you like but that's the plain politically incorrect truth.
2
Can we dismiss once and for all that there is a risk of Iran initiating a nuclear arms race in the region?
Do they fancy we are total clowns? Saudi Arabia - not even the competence to make a toaster. A bicycle is a challenge!
The Saudis have no competence whatsoever in nuclear physics. The same for literature!
The particular competence in Saudi Land is beheadings - 160 since "Prince" Salman. Great fellow, that's at least 10 times ISIL.
For some reason, we are mute. For some reason, NYT seems to ban all posts critical of the Saudi theocracy.
Let's see what happens!
Do they fancy we are total clowns? Saudi Arabia - not even the competence to make a toaster. A bicycle is a challenge!
The Saudis have no competence whatsoever in nuclear physics. The same for literature!
The particular competence in Saudi Land is beheadings - 160 since "Prince" Salman. Great fellow, that's at least 10 times ISIL.
For some reason, we are mute. For some reason, NYT seems to ban all posts critical of the Saudi theocracy.
Let's see what happens!
2
Why doesn't Obama go to Israel himself instead of sending a low level flunky to playact in his place??? If Netanyahu can come here and address Congress why doesn't Obama go to Jerusalem and speak directly to the Knesset? Obama should at least make an attempt to reassure the Israeli public not to worry about Iran's nukes. I know it won't happen because Obama has more important things to do like rename mountains but it might be worth the effort. Oh it's also a good idea for Obama to drop that cold aloof persona that implies he's the only adult in the room any disagreement with the wisdom of his pending deal with Iran will not be tolerated. It sends the wrong message to American Jews who are rightfully apprehensive that not only do we have Iran's nukes to worry about but we'll also be accused of dual loyalty for disagreeing with the President. Hmm.......how come it was patriotic to disagree with George W Bush about going into Iraq but it's suddenly unpatriotic to disagree with Barack Obama about Iran's nukes? What a hypocritical double standard.
1
He should go to Tehran and visit the Mullahs, and break bread with them. Perhaps the tempers may cool down a bit. Also for his legacy, Obama may want to do this as no other president before him had gonads to do this friendly gesture!
3
For decades the US was critically dependent on ME oil which demanded our attention and resources. We even over threw the democratically elected leader of Iran and put our puppet in power to "secure our interests." Oil was our only national interest in the region. As we are no longer critically dependent on ME oil, our presence, blood and treasure should be less not more in the region. Making the ME safe for Israel is NOT in our national interest, contrary to Burns' thinly veiled prescriptions.
2
In a week (with imminent Iran-deal approval) America's GOP-hardliners will begin making us all look like Iranian stooges and wimps. So I'd recommend quietly giving Iranians one week to get 4 American hostages back home. If not, USA should begin getting less quiet: maybe by saying that USA can't guarantee safety of Iranians in USA (including at the UN), under these circumstances. If still no action, declare ("for their own safety") all Iranians on diplomatic passports must leave USA--for instance, by a deadline of the Autumn UN big General Assembly get-together.
Get the dissenters out of jail.
I am quite surprised at the recommendations proposed by Professor Burns. They sound shallow and more like political talking points than policy statements. They lack vision and will only tear the Middle East apart. Instead of pressuring Israel to integrate into the area around it by working on a viable peace solution, Professor Burns wants to arm it even more to continue its adventurism. Instead of promoting education, healthcare and development which are really in the US long term interests and will make the area safer, he is promoting a threatening stance which nobody takes seriously and will only lead to more misery.
Wake up Professor Burns to the new realities on the ground and be constructive not destructive.
Wake up Professor Burns to the new realities on the ground and be constructive not destructive.
4
Unless and until the US decides to deal with its "ally" Saudi Arabia and the exportation and bankrolling of terrorism that is its modus operandi, Iran will continue to expand its influence in self defense. (See Friedman's column today on Saudi Arabia, a necessary reminder to Americans who reflexively blame Iran for terrorism while forgetting that 15 of the 19 9/11 attackers were Saudi)
6
It's important to prevent any player in the Middle East from having nuclear weapons, because the region is highly volatile.
While many of us worry about Iran, we have overlooked other players.
The fear of Iran building nuclear weapons is comprehensible, when we look at North Korea and Pakistan and the threat their nuclear arms poses to their neighbours and arch enemies, South Korea and India respectively.
But there is hope that Iran would be more keen to play by the rules than Pakistan, even though in both countries, it is the military segment, that are the real power-holders.
Iran, with its young educated population will move on. There is hope that the country will be a different one from today's.
While many of us worry about Iran, we have overlooked other players.
The fear of Iran building nuclear weapons is comprehensible, when we look at North Korea and Pakistan and the threat their nuclear arms poses to their neighbours and arch enemies, South Korea and India respectively.
But there is hope that Iran would be more keen to play by the rules than Pakistan, even though in both countries, it is the military segment, that are the real power-holders.
Iran, with its young educated population will move on. There is hope that the country will be a different one from today's.
2
Nicholas Burns superbly recaptures the mood and substance of American foreign policy at its very worst: aggressive, arrogant, as though America has the right to define and determine the shape of Middle East politics, and by inference, assert its supremacy throughout the world. This is Cold War thinking and planning worthy of Kissinger and Albright (no coincidence he uses "assert") and goes to extra lengths to ensure Israeli regional dominance, nuclear weapons and all.
If this is Harvard/Kennedy School, as in fact it is, I feel my own Harvard doctorate has been thrown in the mud, soiled, tarnished. Burns's words come spitting out like a machine gun--all threat, exhibition of power, etc., not a glimmer of inclination toward peace. But he is typical of Obama administration thinking, which is why I consider the Accord, far from better than nothing, deserving of defeat for its revanche-like aspects. Worthy of defeat, to make the situation worse, and thereby further isolate the US for its exaggerated belligerence. Perhaps the other signatories already recognize US moral bankruptcy and break the lockjaw of the embargo and guarantee Iran's security against US and/or Israeli bombing. Power appears to make bullies of us all. And from bully to tyrant is a short step.
If this is Harvard/Kennedy School, as in fact it is, I feel my own Harvard doctorate has been thrown in the mud, soiled, tarnished. Burns's words come spitting out like a machine gun--all threat, exhibition of power, etc., not a glimmer of inclination toward peace. But he is typical of Obama administration thinking, which is why I consider the Accord, far from better than nothing, deserving of defeat for its revanche-like aspects. Worthy of defeat, to make the situation worse, and thereby further isolate the US for its exaggerated belligerence. Perhaps the other signatories already recognize US moral bankruptcy and break the lockjaw of the embargo and guarantee Iran's security against US and/or Israeli bombing. Power appears to make bullies of us all. And from bully to tyrant is a short step.
2
Mr. Burns counsels the United States to "chart a more assertive American posture in the region." We are bombing every day in the Middle East. What's more assertive than that? One shudders to think.
8
Mr. Burns' 4 points represent an excellent presentation of 1950's style thinking about the Middle East -- which, unfortunately, has set the tone and direction for American Middle East policy ever since then.
Times have changed and we need to as well. The Iran deal represents an opportunity for a shift in mentality and strategy -- one towards more non-interference with affairs in the Middle East, hopefully accompanied by something like an arms embargo of the region to stimulate the regional players there to imagine a different way to resolve their differences.
The truth is that there around 410+ million people in the region -- with the three most populous countries (Egypt, Turkey, & Iran) accounting for about 80 million each, another 4 (Saudi, Iraq, Yemen, & Syria) with an average 30 million each. The other 10 countries add up to about 46 million.
No single country is in position to dominate the region -- or even form an alliance with a couple of others to do so. So, it stands to reason that if we left them to their own accord (even after upsetting the balance with our Iraq misadventure) they'll eventually find a way to work things out.
Israel, of course, is a unique problem -- 6 million Jews surrounded by 400+ million Muslims. Oops -- they either need to learn to get along with their neighbors or we need to consider helping them with an exit plan. The cost of supporting their presence is too high for the long haul if they can't find a way to peacefully coexist.
Times have changed and we need to as well. The Iran deal represents an opportunity for a shift in mentality and strategy -- one towards more non-interference with affairs in the Middle East, hopefully accompanied by something like an arms embargo of the region to stimulate the regional players there to imagine a different way to resolve their differences.
The truth is that there around 410+ million people in the region -- with the three most populous countries (Egypt, Turkey, & Iran) accounting for about 80 million each, another 4 (Saudi, Iraq, Yemen, & Syria) with an average 30 million each. The other 10 countries add up to about 46 million.
No single country is in position to dominate the region -- or even form an alliance with a couple of others to do so. So, it stands to reason that if we left them to their own accord (even after upsetting the balance with our Iraq misadventure) they'll eventually find a way to work things out.
Israel, of course, is a unique problem -- 6 million Jews surrounded by 400+ million Muslims. Oops -- they either need to learn to get along with their neighbors or we need to consider helping them with an exit plan. The cost of supporting their presence is too high for the long haul if they can't find a way to peacefully coexist.
9
What is an "exit plan?" Genocide? What can "6 million Jews surrounded by 400+ million Muslims" do to "get along with the neighbors," which include terrorist Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda and now ISIS? Isn't that the definition of why Israel uniquely in the region needs a nuclear deterrent, and why Burns and many others are belatedly trying to make lemonade of this lemon of an agreement?
Iran should be bombed, the IRG and Al Quds forces be taken down, then a coup to overthrow Khameni and the mullahs. No need to send boots on the ground.Massive 24 hour bombing for 30 days will degrade Iran. This should set them back another 50 years in time for the current generation to reinstall their lost monarchy, a regime friendly to the US & Israel. Peace is a chimera in the ME and life has no value There is no lofty western ideal or tradition of democracy as we know it.The ME operates on power, guile, cunning, deceit and treachery. Then there is ISIS.There are no nation states, only tribes, clans and religious sects. The largest state sponsor of terror should be the main recipient of its export. By a 2:1 majority the American people do not support the Obama/Kerry capitulation.The GOP house & Senate reflect the will of the people. So what if Persia was a great empire 2500 years ago so was Greece.
"My name is Ozymandias, King of kings, look upon my works ye mighty and despair".
"My name is Ozymandias, King of kings, look upon my works ye mighty and despair".
3
I guess this is the moderate warmonger stance, since it's sure the deal will go through.
The neocons can always find ways for us to militarily engage, but our memories are still fresh from being lied into Iraq by them all--Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al, with Netanyahu saying he 'guaranteed' Iraq had WMD. How many times do these guys get to be so wrong at such great cost?
The huge military/security establishment sprung up after 9-11 is desperate to keep itself in business, uncaring of anything else.
The neocons can always find ways for us to militarily engage, but our memories are still fresh from being lied into Iraq by them all--Bush, Cheney, Rummy et al, with Netanyahu saying he 'guaranteed' Iraq had WMD. How many times do these guys get to be so wrong at such great cost?
The huge military/security establishment sprung up after 9-11 is desperate to keep itself in business, uncaring of anything else.
10
There is a most surprising naivite to some of Burns thinking. For one, his assertion of American allies with which to forge a containment policy against Iran is, in anything but the very short term, predicated on both unlikely long-term regime stability in those countries and sufficient congruency of our other interests with theirs to maintain a coherent, collective Iranian policy.
Second, Burns underestimates the role of American domestic politics, essentially glossing over the lack of intra-party discussion among Republicans and the dissolution of the traditional bi-partisan consensus on broad foreign policy goals.
Third, his desire to affirm American security guarantees in the region lacks any detail as to how one might create the domestic political will for more war in the region with ill-defined enemies, ill-defined goals, and no plausible exit strategy.
If Burns wants his proposals to be taken seriously, he needs to present a plan to pay for them in both treasure and blood. Unlike the Iraq War, America will not likely support a massive, unfunded venture. And for an open-ended military commitment to be publicly acceptable, the draft will have to be reinstituted. If the public will not tax itself and provide fighters from a broad swathe of society, no other country or non-state foe will take our threat seriously.
Second, Burns underestimates the role of American domestic politics, essentially glossing over the lack of intra-party discussion among Republicans and the dissolution of the traditional bi-partisan consensus on broad foreign policy goals.
Third, his desire to affirm American security guarantees in the region lacks any detail as to how one might create the domestic political will for more war in the region with ill-defined enemies, ill-defined goals, and no plausible exit strategy.
If Burns wants his proposals to be taken seriously, he needs to present a plan to pay for them in both treasure and blood. Unlike the Iraq War, America will not likely support a massive, unfunded venture. And for an open-ended military commitment to be publicly acceptable, the draft will have to be reinstituted. If the public will not tax itself and provide fighters from a broad swathe of society, no other country or non-state foe will take our threat seriously.
4
Nick Burns' prescriptions makes as much logical sense in the wake of an Iran agreement as they did without any such agreement. So the question is: What has been gained by that agreement? Burns' depiction of "the day after" exposes nothing less than the the weakness of the agreement, the porousness of its guarantees and the fragility and fantasy of its resulting in any change for the better. What kind of agreement is this when one side to the agreement must redouble its protection against the consequences of the other side's compliance? One after another of the deal's supporters preface their reluctant vote in favor with caveats about its inadequacy. How can anyone take such a gamble with the future off the region and the world by ignoring those doubts in the name of loyalty to their party and president?
4
Obama is president for 16 more months, making sweeping commitments for use of American force is not appropriate and Obama is right on focusing on more immediately compelling issues like global warming.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni, the natural enemy of Shiite Iran. Iran is not our enemy, but more the enemy of our enemy.
It is true that some elements in Iran consider the US the great satan, but then we did overthrow their democratically elected government in the early 50s, install a Shah, and support Iraq against them when that went bad.
Obama is making peace with Cuba and Iran, and that is a good thing.
Netanyahu should take the initiative to restore good relations with the United States.
Obama is doing a fine job and should ignore this advice.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are Sunni, the natural enemy of Shiite Iran. Iran is not our enemy, but more the enemy of our enemy.
It is true that some elements in Iran consider the US the great satan, but then we did overthrow their democratically elected government in the early 50s, install a Shah, and support Iraq against them when that went bad.
Obama is making peace with Cuba and Iran, and that is a good thing.
Netanyahu should take the initiative to restore good relations with the United States.
Obama is doing a fine job and should ignore this advice.
12
This is a civilized OpEd - Burns is no John Bolton.
Iran is a nasty place, horrific human rights violations but it's Mecca (forgive the irony) contrasted with one of the worst places on the planet for violations of human rights, for the rights of children, for the rights of women, i.e.., Saudi Arabia.
Apartheid South Africa was El Dorado compared with this theocracy. "Prince" Salman has already managed 150 beheadings since recently "ascending the throne"., that's at least 10x "better" than ISIS.
We need to utterly sever all ties with this abhorrent concentration camp that is Saudi Arabia.
As for concerns that Iran's nuclear intentions might spur a nuclear arms race in the region, get a life. Science is dead in Saudi Arabia, there is no nuclear science community. Science like literature has perished there. This argument is totally bogus. At least until Saudi scientists show they can make a toaster oven.
The human rights atrocities perpetrated on Gaza mean we should also impose the most severe conditions ever on Israel for any military and monetary support.
Iran is a nasty place, horrific human rights violations but it's Mecca (forgive the irony) contrasted with one of the worst places on the planet for violations of human rights, for the rights of children, for the rights of women, i.e.., Saudi Arabia.
Apartheid South Africa was El Dorado compared with this theocracy. "Prince" Salman has already managed 150 beheadings since recently "ascending the throne"., that's at least 10x "better" than ISIS.
We need to utterly sever all ties with this abhorrent concentration camp that is Saudi Arabia.
As for concerns that Iran's nuclear intentions might spur a nuclear arms race in the region, get a life. Science is dead in Saudi Arabia, there is no nuclear science community. Science like literature has perished there. This argument is totally bogus. At least until Saudi scientists show they can make a toaster oven.
The human rights atrocities perpetrated on Gaza mean we should also impose the most severe conditions ever on Israel for any military and monetary support.
3
The next logical step would be military cooperation to fight ISIS, as our only effective ally in the fight against ISIS, outside of the Kurds (who are now being bombed by the Turks), are the Iranians; of course the next political step is another story, a step, unfortunately, subject to sabotage by our "partners" in the region. Unfortunately, the Iranians too are hampered by a certain duplicity both internally and externally as well. So. there needs to be a meeting of pragmatists from both countries and a workable and effective strategy is needed. Though the Swiss have been our representative in Tehran, I would suggest triangulating this relationship through the Vietnamese.
1
The good Professor left one point out. The President needs to go to Saudi Arabia and kiss the King's backside, to reassure him that the US stands behind him.
2
Bipartisanship on anything will not be possible while Obama is in office. The same with any cooperation from Bibi. Especially if the deal goes through.. We start with these basic facts of life.
"What Should Obama Do Next on Iran?"
Let me guess... cross the fingers on his other hand?
Let me guess... cross the fingers on his other hand?
2
Mr. Burns needs to remember that we are Americans and not Israelis. America has lived with a nuclear Pakistan, a country that fuels terrorism both in Afghanistan and India, yet we aren't talking about invading Pakistan at all. Nor is America drawing up invasion plans to attack those pesky nuclear armed North Koreans.
Asking that President Obama visit Israel and stand next to Prime Minister Netanyahu makes for some great optics, but President Obama has unquestionably provided outstanding support to Israel. Just ask former Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. However, the fact that President Obama places the lives of America's sons and daughters before the imperialistic agenda of Israel's extremists is exactly why he was reelected.
Ultimately, with Iran, Israel is using hysteria to steer the world's attention away from resolving the apartheid system they have inflicted upon the Palestinians. For example, Israel's lobby blatantly seeks to use the Iran deal to leverage more new American weapons. Keep in mind, Israel's number one weapons customer is China. At what point does Israel's weapons sales to China infringe upon America's security? Let's put the entire spectrum of security on review, not the narrow minded self-serving Neocon hysteria that eliminated Saddam, made Iran more powerful and gave rise to Isis.
The Iran Deal is not perfect, but it's clearly better than invading Iran, and even J-Street the pro-Israeli lobby supports it.
Asking that President Obama visit Israel and stand next to Prime Minister Netanyahu makes for some great optics, but President Obama has unquestionably provided outstanding support to Israel. Just ask former Israeli Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. However, the fact that President Obama places the lives of America's sons and daughters before the imperialistic agenda of Israel's extremists is exactly why he was reelected.
Ultimately, with Iran, Israel is using hysteria to steer the world's attention away from resolving the apartheid system they have inflicted upon the Palestinians. For example, Israel's lobby blatantly seeks to use the Iran deal to leverage more new American weapons. Keep in mind, Israel's number one weapons customer is China. At what point does Israel's weapons sales to China infringe upon America's security? Let's put the entire spectrum of security on review, not the narrow minded self-serving Neocon hysteria that eliminated Saddam, made Iran more powerful and gave rise to Isis.
The Iran Deal is not perfect, but it's clearly better than invading Iran, and even J-Street the pro-Israeli lobby supports it.
9
If history predicts the future, the side that violates this deal will not be Iran. The history of the Middle East is strewn with broken promises from the Europeans and Americans.
4
Illegal immigrants: 60,000 Americans living in the West Bank. Please, Mr Trump, deal with this violation of international law and public morality
2
When did ensuring the success of the Zionist experiment become our number one foreign policy goal? As I remember it, even many Jews declined to support the Zionist idea of a colony for European Jews in some other part of the world. I have always looked on the foundation of Israel as a well-intentioned mistake. What makes this such an important issue for the United States?
4
Since not a single one of the 301 Republicans in the Senate and House is likely to vote for the deal - where does the idea of bi-partisanship come from? You are expecting some action from a party that is totally intransigent.
6
Much as I respect Nicholas Burns there is something otherworldly about his commentary. It assumes that further American military meddling in the Near East will find genuine approval in the region.
Burns proposal could get us up tp our ears in the Sunni-Shia conflict, for which our invasions of Iraq served as a match in dry tinder. Keeping our commitments to Israel (unless you are in thrall to Likud/AIPAC) does not require us to get so much more involved, as Burns suggests. I would like us to finish the business at hand, help Arabs and Kurds destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria and let JCPOA work, as it is likely to do. Why? It would be suicidal for Iran to go for a bomb, given Israel's substantial nuclear deterrent, which is the Banquo's ghost at the feast of argument over JCPOA.
Burns proposal could get us up tp our ears in the Sunni-Shia conflict, for which our invasions of Iraq served as a match in dry tinder. Keeping our commitments to Israel (unless you are in thrall to Likud/AIPAC) does not require us to get so much more involved, as Burns suggests. I would like us to finish the business at hand, help Arabs and Kurds destroy ISIL in Iraq and Syria and let JCPOA work, as it is likely to do. Why? It would be suicidal for Iran to go for a bomb, given Israel's substantial nuclear deterrent, which is the Banquo's ghost at the feast of argument over JCPOA.
4
Burns is ridiculous, imagining that we have to increase our presence in the Middle East.....because the Iran deal will pass....because it has already passed in the world....France, England, Germay, Russia, and China are trading with and normalizing relations with Iran.
Only a confused person would pretend that America owes Israel special consideration despite Netanyahu's treachery. No other country thinks Israel under Netanyahu has any credibility. They are all fed up.
Israel must consider its options and hold a new election right away and elect an adult.
Only a confused person would pretend that America owes Israel special consideration despite Netanyahu's treachery. No other country thinks Israel under Netanyahu has any credibility. They are all fed up.
Israel must consider its options and hold a new election right away and elect an adult.
9
What should Obama do next? Nothing. He has taken the situation as far as he can. Leave him alone.
Are matters going to change in the Middle East? They have always been mercurial. Nothing new there.
If Iranian leadership wants to remain in leadership they have to feed their own.
This Accord allows it without expanding influence.
Are matters going to change in the Middle East? They have always been mercurial. Nothing new there.
If Iranian leadership wants to remain in leadership they have to feed their own.
This Accord allows it without expanding influence.
6
We achieve our first agreement limiting the spread of weapons, any weapons, in the region, and what does this "experienced diplomat" recommend? That we go back with a vengeance to business as usual and rush military hardware and troops to the region. Specifically, that we assemble a strike force capable of devastating Iran, presumably on its every border. Provocative? No, really just a domestic message to reassure Congress. Some kinds of "experience" and "expertise" we can do without.
5
Consider what happens if as expected the deal is rejected by Congress and that resolution is vetoed by the President but then the Ayatollah says Iran does not wish to enter into an agreement with the US which is not supported by Congress and the President. That would be unexpected. Hpw would one bet on the outcome of that scenario? Who then has prevailed? What likelihood that the sanctions continue? War? Iran just resumes its nuclear program?
2
Mr. President, please commit to a nuclear-free Middle East.
That means any further military aid to Israel comes after they turn-over their nuclear weapons to the US and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
We can't re-gain any credibility in the region unless we stop turning a blind eye to one theocracy that HAS nuclear weapons while we condemn and distrust another theocracy that has signed the NPT and is willing to dilute nuclear material that has never been enriched to weapons grade in the first place.
That means any further military aid to Israel comes after they turn-over their nuclear weapons to the US and sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
We can't re-gain any credibility in the region unless we stop turning a blind eye to one theocracy that HAS nuclear weapons while we condemn and distrust another theocracy that has signed the NPT and is willing to dilute nuclear material that has never been enriched to weapons grade in the first place.
8
this is the kind of delusional thinking that has weakened america immeasurably under the watch of our failed potus. take your allies for granted, and pander to your habitually dishonest adversaries. hard to believe that someone could actually "think" this way….
Does Burns have any brain cells? A big part of the problem and maybe the whole problem is the US and Britain have tried to rule and control the region. The countries in the middle east need to work things out themselves and it will be a lot easier for them without our interference. We do not understand the region and they don't need what we consider our superior values and intelligence.
5
Obama pivot American Leadership back to the Middle East? Surely that must be some Obama other than the incompetent, foolish, appeaser sitting in our White House? That's NOT going to happen while Obama is in the White House. What is next with Iran is that once they pick themselves up off the floor where they fell laughing at our weak, inept, INCOMPETENT President they will gleefully watch the Democrat support Obama's veto and uphold this surrender. Then they will go about busily developing their NUKE arsenal, not in 10 or 15 years, but over the next 1 or 2. My bet is that despite Obama's total capitulation, and the democrats betrayal of the USA and the world, upholding his surrender the Iranians will have so much contempt for Obama that they will want to test one of their NUKES before Obama leaves office and humiliate him and the USA in front of the world as badly as they did Jimmy Carter, who is now the 2nd worst President in U.S. history after Obama. And of course with $150 billion they'll be able to really ramp up their support of terrorism. That is what is next for Iran. Nukes and Terror.
2
This article falls firmly under the section of "wishful thinking". Mr. Obama has proven over and over again that his policy is that of a disengagement at all costs. And the costs have been high. Failed iraq, ISIS, disintegrating Afghanistan, more powerful Iran, and emboldened Putin. Mr. Obama either never studied history or ignored its lessons. Leaving a vacuum of power invites someone with ill intentions to fill it. Nothing will stop his unilateral withdrawal from the US role the world desperately needs. he has many cheerleaders who are only to happy to heap all the blame on "Bush" and basically let the world fend on itself. How quickly we forget the lesson of 9/11 - the problems will invariably follow us home.
3
Vizitei, [disengagement]. ''How quickly we forgot the lesson of 9/11- the problems will invariable follow us home''.... Engagement is the lesson we should take away from 9/11.. ...9/11had nothing to do with our way of life. Had we taken the advice of Pres. Washington to mind our own business, see his ''Farewell Address'' regarding foreign policy, we would have never been at wars with people 6,500 miles away from us. How many of those countries have boots on the ground in the U.S.'s?
A stronger military presence in the middle east? an emphatic NO from this citizen. The powers that be in Washington DC have made innumerable blunders and seem incapable of realizing that because we want it to be one way and have the world's largest military that we can force that outcome. The American people have enough of the quagmire.
3
It might not happy immediately,could take a year or more, but I get the feeling that once Iran gets its Billions it will make the destruction of Libya by the coalition, look like Disney Land as the Middle East will not continue to burn but explode.
2
He should prepare for nuclear fallout in the immediate area of Israel.
Pretty much as simple as that.
It could happen any day now. Thanks, obama.
Pretty much as simple as that.
It could happen any day now. Thanks, obama.
Many of Mr. Burns's recommendations seem to be built of wishful thinking. For example, his recommendation that President Obama promise military action if Iran tries to build nuclear weapons is likely to be treated as feckless bluster, given his "Red Line" capitulation in Syria and given the number of times he has emphasized that the current deal will prevent use of force. His repeated caving in to Iranian negotiating demands likewise has undermined any protestations of tough actions in the event of Iranian intransigence or malfeasance.
These are not the thoughts of a right-wing warmonger. They are concerns of people who are skeptical and worried about the JCPOA, who have supported Obama on other issues, and who are appalled by the campaign that Obama and Kerry have waged to secure Congressional votes for their deal.
These are not the thoughts of a right-wing warmonger. They are concerns of people who are skeptical and worried about the JCPOA, who have supported Obama on other issues, and who are appalled by the campaign that Obama and Kerry have waged to secure Congressional votes for their deal.
1
Although the bar for stability in the Middle East is woefully low, Iran is one of the most stable powers in the region, despite its theocratic control and the long-standing economic sanctions against it. America would to well to remember this before seriously considering the "war first" option that proposes to confront bluster with bombs.
As for the suggestion for President Obama to make a public gesture of standing "side by side with Mr. Netanyahu," the Israeli PM deserves nothing of the sort but, as Mr. Burns opines, it is probably a prudent thing to do.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
As for the suggestion for President Obama to make a public gesture of standing "side by side with Mr. Netanyahu," the Israeli PM deserves nothing of the sort but, as Mr. Burns opines, it is probably a prudent thing to do.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
The U.S. can do little in the Middle East as long as Israel refuses to negotiate to create a Palestinian state. It is often said the Iran is committed to the destruction of Israel, but no one ever talks about Israel's commitment to the destruction of the Palestinian people.
The U.S. can do little in the Middle East when Turkey, nominally a NATO ally, and Saudi Arabia, another nominal ally, acts against the best interests of NATO.
The U.S. can do little in the Middle East without forming an alliance with Iran and Russia against ISIS. As bad as al-Asad is, he is better than ISIS.
The U.S. can do little in the Middle East when Turkey, nominally a NATO ally, and Saudi Arabia, another nominal ally, acts against the best interests of NATO.
The U.S. can do little in the Middle East without forming an alliance with Iran and Russia against ISIS. As bad as al-Asad is, he is better than ISIS.
3
The United States is very unlikely to launch a future war against Iran if it moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. The only real outcome of such a strike would be to assure that a revanchist Iran would eventually strike back. Iran can be deterred just as Russia was deterred. Israel and the United States can readily do this by maintaining their current second strike capabilities.
3
Obama needs to go and sit with the Imams for a couple of days and break bread with them. Obama has nothing to lose, but so much to gain.
3
I find it worrisome that Israel -- which has over 100 nuclear weapons, which it refuses to have inspected -- is always so worried about its security.
The days of the U.S. president hand-holding the Israelis to calm their fears are coming to an end. Netanyahu helped achieve this by crying "Wolf!" for so many years -- "Another Holocaust is coming! Another Hitler is coming!" -- that finally people (and that includes lots of American Jews, and I am one) are catching on to his game. We believed him on Iraq, unfortunately, but many more people see what he's saying about Iran as a bunch of lies.
AIPAC should be realizing this right about now, what with spending $40 million on anti-Iran-deal advertising with very little to show for it.
The days of the U.S. president hand-holding the Israelis to calm their fears are coming to an end. Netanyahu helped achieve this by crying "Wolf!" for so many years -- "Another Holocaust is coming! Another Hitler is coming!" -- that finally people (and that includes lots of American Jews, and I am one) are catching on to his game. We believed him on Iraq, unfortunately, but many more people see what he's saying about Iran as a bunch of lies.
AIPAC should be realizing this right about now, what with spending $40 million on anti-Iran-deal advertising with very little to show for it.
3
America should deliver some bunk busting bombs to Israel as good measure. That affirmation will resonate, letting Iran know not to play games thru Hezbollah and Hamas.
2
I would expect many of our pacifist friends in the comments section to oppose these measure, as they really don't see much of a problem with a nuclear weapons armed Iran.
Count me as thinking otherwise--if there is any chance of a nuclear war in our lifetime, I place the odds as most likely in that region. And we are talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that has been engaged in several current and recent proxy wars in the region. I don't know about anyone else, but watching the news, I don't really think that anti-American fundamentalist Islamic theocracies should be given the benefit of the doubt these days in terms of promoting peace, stability and liberal democracy. I've seen a few too many execution videos purporting to be justified based on the tenets of Islam. And that goes for Turkey, Syria, Qatar, Palestine and Saudi Arabia too.
Maybe limiting Iran's enrichment capability for 15 years will work and in the intervening period all the young people that deep down are Americans just like you and me will take power and give up any plans to develops nuclear weapons and long range missiles. But don't count me as someone naive enough to think that we should just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that everything will just work out on its own in the absence of assertive American foreign policy.
Count me as thinking otherwise--if there is any chance of a nuclear war in our lifetime, I place the odds as most likely in that region. And we are talking about nuclear weapons in the hands of an anti-American fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that has been engaged in several current and recent proxy wars in the region. I don't know about anyone else, but watching the news, I don't really think that anti-American fundamentalist Islamic theocracies should be given the benefit of the doubt these days in terms of promoting peace, stability and liberal democracy. I've seen a few too many execution videos purporting to be justified based on the tenets of Islam. And that goes for Turkey, Syria, Qatar, Palestine and Saudi Arabia too.
Maybe limiting Iran's enrichment capability for 15 years will work and in the intervening period all the young people that deep down are Americans just like you and me will take power and give up any plans to develops nuclear weapons and long range missiles. But don't count me as someone naive enough to think that we should just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that everything will just work out on its own in the absence of assertive American foreign policy.
1
Burns' recommendations sound like Plan B for Dick Cheney and the Neo Cons. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Netanyahu who attempted to sabotage every major initiative that Obama put forward in the Mid East sounds like an insane way to win stronger support from Arab countries who detest the PM of Israel. Perhaps Burns would also suggest that when Obama comes to Israel, hat in hand, that he also should also disavow our two state solution to appease Netanyahu. Obama has given the current PM more military firepower than any other U.S. President, kept his comments about the lives lost in the Gaza invasion to a minimum, and has made every effort to explain his Iran deal to AiIPAC.
The Likud Party has already found a willing partner with the Republican Party perhaps Mr. Burns could also join their ranks.
The Likud Party has already found a willing partner with the Republican Party perhaps Mr. Burns could also join their ranks.
2
Our diminished credibility in "the region" - The Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, all the places that are tinderboxes are due to the previous President's willful, demented, ill-advised incursions into those countries, assuring Americans that we would be greeted with flowers during our empire-building "walks in the park", the "slam dunk" foreign policy. Advising President Obama to declare that he will not permit Iran to go nuclear, Mr. Burns, means diddly in the zeitgeist of the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS, the New Caliphate) which is spreading like kudzu over there.
Rambling about charting an assertive American posture in the region sounds vaguely obscene. Our allies, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states aren't our friends, but defend them we must. Your scenario of President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing side by side in Israel against a nuclear Iran (a photo-op not seen since Sadat, Begin and Carter communed on the White House north lawn in 1979) is risible. How useful could a US-led coalition (of whom?) be in pressuring Iran to end its support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria? These ideas are pie in the sky. We are not, despite contrary opinions, the global good cop. It is all we can do today to hold our friends close, and try to hold our enemies closer. The Iran Deal is as good as we can negotiate to keep Iran on the straight and narrow, avoiding nuclear capability for at least a few more years. Everything else is bluster.
Rambling about charting an assertive American posture in the region sounds vaguely obscene. Our allies, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states aren't our friends, but defend them we must. Your scenario of President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing side by side in Israel against a nuclear Iran (a photo-op not seen since Sadat, Begin and Carter communed on the White House north lawn in 1979) is risible. How useful could a US-led coalition (of whom?) be in pressuring Iran to end its support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria? These ideas are pie in the sky. We are not, despite contrary opinions, the global good cop. It is all we can do today to hold our friends close, and try to hold our enemies closer. The Iran Deal is as good as we can negotiate to keep Iran on the straight and narrow, avoiding nuclear capability for at least a few more years. Everything else is bluster.
1
Nicholas, only a Martian would take your opinion seriously. He or she would not be aware of the fact that Israel has 300 nukes and we have 10,000 nukes. They would not [like most of us Americans] be aware that we were on the side of our dear friend Saddam when he gassed countless Iranians during their war, that we labeled them part of ''the axis of terror'', etc. ''Mr. Obama should travel to Israel to stand side by side with Mr. Netanyahu against a nuclear Iran'', is laughable and the height of hypocrisy, and will confirm once and for all that the tail is wagging the dog. You say, reimpose sanctions in a violent, turbulent but still vital Middle East. Who is going to go along with these sanction? Did we Americans have anything to do with the turbulence and violent Middle East? As long as we only see what others do to us but never see what we do to others peace will never come. Read Pres. Washington's ''Farwell Address'' regarding foreign policy to discover how we got in this mess.
2
I don't think Mr. Burns has heard of the good cop bad cop way of negotiating. We should play the good cop as much as possible and deprive the radicals of any reason to maintain their intransigent stand. Iran is an overwhelming young nation whose people just want peace and prosperity not a suicidal war with Isreal of the reimposition of sanctions. We should just play in cool.
1
These are the things President Obama should do next on Iran.
(a) Apologize for the 1953 coup & supplying chemical weapons to Iran and say lets bygones be bygones and establish a diplomatic relationship.
(b) Have a military treaty with Iran so that (i) we can supply Afghanistan via its Western Border. [The Indians are built a highway from Chabahar port to Kabul - use that] (ii) work jointly against ISIS!
(c) Give that treaty to the Senate to ratify. Have the military top brass support it. Let us see with whom does the Senate Republicans stand. With our military OR with an insecure foreign potentate.
(d) Work with Iran to build a better tomorrow,
(a) Apologize for the 1953 coup & supplying chemical weapons to Iran and say lets bygones be bygones and establish a diplomatic relationship.
(b) Have a military treaty with Iran so that (i) we can supply Afghanistan via its Western Border. [The Indians are built a highway from Chabahar port to Kabul - use that] (ii) work jointly against ISIS!
(c) Give that treaty to the Senate to ratify. Have the military top brass support it. Let us see with whom does the Senate Republicans stand. With our military OR with an insecure foreign potentate.
(d) Work with Iran to build a better tomorrow,
I don't think an obsessive policy towards containing Iran will be productive. We should support democratic aspirations across the Middle East as our main goal. Supporting dictatorships like in Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia will only hurt us sooner or later. Also we have to stop hiding our heads in the sand and address the plight of the Palestinians. Israeli interests and ours don't necessarily coincide!
1
Democrats supporting this deal are basically putting their political future in the hands of the mullahs and relying on them to not cheat, not launch another proxy war, not arm terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, not continue abusing women, not continuing hanging political prisoners and hope they release the Americans they currently have imprisoned. That's a lot of hope to bank your political career on. But what makes the deal bad most of all is that it simply assumes that all other issues related to Iran such as terrorism, sectarian conflict, human rights abuses and oppression of free speech and media, are fundamentally irrelevant to Iran's conduct as it relates to implementing this deal. That's an absurd contention and one that has always failed when applied to regimes such as North Korea, Warsaw Pact nations, and others.
I am beginning to wonder if we can do anything without the consent of our Lord and Master - Israel!! Why is it anytime we take any decision, we have to bend over backwards to reassure Israel. Their Leader and our treacherous legislators point-blank snub our Country's President and invite this cantankerous Leader to Congress for a State of the Union like ( I meant the State of Israel )address. The man sulks, raves and rants because we went ahead with diplomacy with five other countries. But no matter how many times we reassure, how many ways we pacify Israel, no matter how many pledges we have taken to protect Israel and that Israel is our bestest (???) ally, now and forever, will never satisfy Israel. Then why are we bothering because nothing short of scuttling the Iran Deal and bombing Teheran will satisfy them. Why is my country beholden like a puppy? Why does our President see it so imperative to inform Netanyahu first after the Deal is reached. We make him the Leader without him being OUR Leader. As an American I fail to see why we are always in the apologetic and reassuring mode. We have lost all credibility in the rest of the world for our blind devotion to Israel. And before anyone goes into anti-semite proclamations I am NOT,which is the default when Israel is chastised for some unbelievable, bad behavior. Now I bet this comment will be edited but time to say the emperor has no clothes.
2
Your comment and others like it are so absurd and devoid of fairness and logic that is not exactly surprising that charges of antisemitism are leveled . The Iranians threaten to annihilate Israel on a daily basis and Hezbollah, which is in actuality is just an extension of the Iranian army, sits on the Lebanese border with 100,000 missiles pointed at Israeli cities. Imagine a theoretical scenario in which the Mexican government is negotiating a deal to bring and fund Iranian Revolutionary Guard units to the Texas border. How many seconds would it take before the Americans use their power and influence to nix this and rightfully so? The Israelis as well as every other country in the world has the right and indeed the obligation to protect the lives of its citizens by exerting whatever influence and power they have to do so .
It is disingenuous to write that rejecting the deal strengthens Iran while weakening America’s credibility when you admit in the same paragraph that the GOP is right to criticize because it “could” allow Iran to build a nuclear arms after 15 years. You don’t say, what is true, that the “principle weakness” really is the unverifiable nature of it, due in part to long response-to-challenge time frames and the terms of secret IAEA terms with Iran to which the agreement is tied, all of which could see Iran being short months to breakout, at term. Nor do you mention Iran is untrustworthy and covert work could be continuing in sites of which the U.S. is unaware. So, how is Iran prevented from getting the bomb? It isn’t. It is only delayed.
The president has already said he will not allow Iran to go nuclear, which is a moot promise, not binding on his successors. But when Iran does go nuclear, the long-term struggle will be unwinnable, as Iran will be unrestrained to leverage that power to advance its ambitions.
What vital interests does an energy-producing U.S. have in the region to commit to war by treaty, except the only truly democratic nation in the region, Israel? I would not wish to be tied to the defense of other nations there, plutocracies, monarchies, dictatorships and Islamist extremists all. And if a strong regional coalition with Arab states and Turkey can be formed, the first proof of it will be a commitment of all resources by them to defeat ISIS, on their own.
The president has already said he will not allow Iran to go nuclear, which is a moot promise, not binding on his successors. But when Iran does go nuclear, the long-term struggle will be unwinnable, as Iran will be unrestrained to leverage that power to advance its ambitions.
What vital interests does an energy-producing U.S. have in the region to commit to war by treaty, except the only truly democratic nation in the region, Israel? I would not wish to be tied to the defense of other nations there, plutocracies, monarchies, dictatorships and Islamist extremists all. And if a strong regional coalition with Arab states and Turkey can be formed, the first proof of it will be a commitment of all resources by them to defeat ISIS, on their own.
"Republicans, by contrast, did not make the case to enough Democrats who were genuinely on the fence that walking away unilaterally in hopes of a better deal later was realistic." Republican do not make a case. They only engage in the lowest forms of partisan sniping and demagoguery. Facts are the bitter enemy of the Republican party and vice versa.
2
"His most important aim, looking beyond the vote, is to win the long term struggle with Iran for power in the Middle East." And the best way to do that is to kick his legs out from under him at the beginning of winning that long term struggle?
Mr. Burns offers horrible, even laughable advice. Obama should declare that he will not permit Iran to go nuclear? Hasn't he done that many times already? Wouldn't saying it now imply doubt as to the efficacy of the just completed deal in fully preventing Iran from going nuclear at least while he remains in office?
Even more ridiculous is Burns' notion that such a declaration, coming now, "will be a serious response to [Republican] concerns and reassure wavering Democrats... [and] will recoup some of our diminished credibility in the region." Oh yeah, the Republicans will fall all over themselves suddenly realizing their "concerns" are addressed and hey maybe the deal isn't so bad after all. And they and the wavering Democrats will stop responding to all that pressure from the Israel lobby which urgently wants to KILL the deal. All Obama has to do is "declare" that he and future presidents will not permit Iran to go nuclear!
And if Burns is so concerned about our diminished credibility in the region, he should recognize that the deal itself has done much to restore that credibility. Further, he should give up the very strange idea of Obama rewarding Netanyahu by traveling to Israel to stand "side by side" with him and bad-mouth Iran from there. Netanyahu, who has brazenly been attempting to undermine all of Obama's efforts in regard to Iran, does not deserve any such reward.
Even more ridiculous is Burns' notion that such a declaration, coming now, "will be a serious response to [Republican] concerns and reassure wavering Democrats... [and] will recoup some of our diminished credibility in the region." Oh yeah, the Republicans will fall all over themselves suddenly realizing their "concerns" are addressed and hey maybe the deal isn't so bad after all. And they and the wavering Democrats will stop responding to all that pressure from the Israel lobby which urgently wants to KILL the deal. All Obama has to do is "declare" that he and future presidents will not permit Iran to go nuclear!
And if Burns is so concerned about our diminished credibility in the region, he should recognize that the deal itself has done much to restore that credibility. Further, he should give up the very strange idea of Obama rewarding Netanyahu by traveling to Israel to stand "side by side" with him and bad-mouth Iran from there. Netanyahu, who has brazenly been attempting to undermine all of Obama's efforts in regard to Iran, does not deserve any such reward.
3
Mr. Burn's recommendations seem to largely consist of various ways of keeping a thumb on the scales, so to speak, to the advantage of Sunnis.
Might this approach prevent a workable and more peaceful equilibrium in the region from ever being achieved?
Might this approach prevent a workable and more peaceful equilibrium in the region from ever being achieved?
1
I agree with Mr. Burns but feel it falls way too short. The threat hardly is just with Iran . . . It lies with other, potentially unstable countries aspiring to obtain them - for now, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Any one country in that region could trigger a nuclear arms race there that would, no doubt, include Iran. As a result, the U.S. - ideally with the same coalition in the Iran talks - should aggressively seek a zero nuclear pact with the region so this doesn't happen. Of course, they'd have to solve the highly complicated issue of Israel having a nuclear arsenal, but I'll conveniently leave that to the diplomats.
Let the deal fail, and renegotiate from strength. Where are the American prisoners ? What's with death to America and Israel. Give them billions up front to sponsor terrorism all over the world. What is it about this that he and his cronies in congress do not understand ?
1
Once the deal is signed and money starts pouring into Iran in the billions of dollars, there will not be a "next". Iran will proceed immediately to supply its proxies in the Middle East (Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.) and various other terrorist organizations in Africa and the rest of the world with ammunition and expertise to conduct as many terrorist attacks on the West as it deems necessary. Once Iran has nuclear capabilities, which could be much earlier than the CIA thinks (they have been wrong before), Iran will proceed to use its inter continental ballistic missiles to attack and annihilate the Jews and Arabs in Israel (six million Jews and two million Arabs that the world decided to forget about, again). And, of course, once this is accomplished, Iran will turn to attack the US. After all, it has already defined Israel the "little Satan" and the US the "big Satan". There is no "after the deal is signed". Iran cannot be trusted to keep its side of any deal, as many years of experience should have taught the US.
2
After reading what I am offered here, many other discussions of the situation in the Middle East, and thought a lot about arguments pro and con I have come to the conclusion that painful as it may be, as uncomfortable as it may be, we need to return to a policy of boots on the ground in the region. We cannot afford to have a powerful country always in a position to thrust us into conflict, to continue behavior threatening American security, to underwrite meddling in the internal affairs of neighboring countries, and under the control of extremists whose vision of the region centers on extending the domination of a religious faith. We have tried to negotiate, we have tried to temporize, we have tried to act as honest brokers and to put our thumbs on the scale, none of this works. These extremists have played Americans for years, assuring us on one hand we have mutual interests while adopting policies at every turn that make peace unlikely, that sow the seeds of more conflict, more death, and more insecurity for the United States. They will lead us down the road with assurances and pledges, counting on the ineptitude of an American president who has demonstrated since his election his weakness in the face of determined opposition. But if the American president is unwilling to face what must be done then it falls to others to speak the truth, however unpalatable as it might be, and urge both the unthinkable and the obvious.......
Invade Israel.
Invade Israel.
2
The unexpected will occur. Bet on it. That has a wide range. First, there is the possibility of political change happening in Iran. this new world-status (assuming the U.S. deal with Iran gets through) could change the country. they will be joining the rest of the world--except for the radical Islamists who could simply get left behind, looking around, wondering where their power went.
Don't bet on that. Rapprochement with Israel won't happen unless the Iranian people do shluff off the radical Islamists and repudiate Hezbollah. Don't bet on that.
Next, all that Iranian oil (# 4 in reserves in the world) hits the market. Can you say $2.00 per gallon gas in California?--and $1.00 everywhere else.
Next, Iran becomes a serious partner for containing (and defeating) ISIS.
What's the downside possibility? Republican neo-cons come to power again and there is another war in the Middle East, with U.S. boots on the ground, and Israel gets involved. This could happen. Maybe it's inevitable.
Don't bet on that. Rapprochement with Israel won't happen unless the Iranian people do shluff off the radical Islamists and repudiate Hezbollah. Don't bet on that.
Next, all that Iranian oil (# 4 in reserves in the world) hits the market. Can you say $2.00 per gallon gas in California?--and $1.00 everywhere else.
Next, Iran becomes a serious partner for containing (and defeating) ISIS.
What's the downside possibility? Republican neo-cons come to power again and there is another war in the Middle East, with U.S. boots on the ground, and Israel gets involved. This could happen. Maybe it's inevitable.
7
No country has the right to initiate military action against Iran, unless Iran do so to them. Israel has not right to bomb anything in Iran even if it is a bomb making factory.
Iran would no more use a nuke than Russia did during the cold war. And when Regan made an agreement with Gorbachev, the GOP was furious, just as the were when Nixon went to China. We hear the same old arguments to day that we heard then. These right wing crybabies will have another tantrum, and it is time they were sent to their corner and made to sit, just like any unruly child.
We did not vote Netanyahu into any office here, he has no business trying to influence congress. if he tried that in Germany, Italy, or France, he would be told to leave.
We make an agreement with Iran, if they do not keep it, then we can make the sanctions even more restrictive. Israel says if we lift the sanctions, Iran will use the money the will get in trade to finance more terrorism. The say they will buy a new fleet of Boeings, and other needed American made products. No matter what group takes some kind of offense against Israel, they will blame Iran for it. Iran says death to Israel, I say death to the GOP, may you die form meanness and nastiness.
We have a core of holdover chicken hawks that want to send your grand-kids to die in the sand of the middle east. I say make them go and show us how to die in the sand.
Iran would no more use a nuke than Russia did during the cold war. And when Regan made an agreement with Gorbachev, the GOP was furious, just as the were when Nixon went to China. We hear the same old arguments to day that we heard then. These right wing crybabies will have another tantrum, and it is time they were sent to their corner and made to sit, just like any unruly child.
We did not vote Netanyahu into any office here, he has no business trying to influence congress. if he tried that in Germany, Italy, or France, he would be told to leave.
We make an agreement with Iran, if they do not keep it, then we can make the sanctions even more restrictive. Israel says if we lift the sanctions, Iran will use the money the will get in trade to finance more terrorism. The say they will buy a new fleet of Boeings, and other needed American made products. No matter what group takes some kind of offense against Israel, they will blame Iran for it. Iran says death to Israel, I say death to the GOP, may you die form meanness and nastiness.
We have a core of holdover chicken hawks that want to send your grand-kids to die in the sand of the middle east. I say make them go and show us how to die in the sand.
24
If this is what a "Brilliant" career diplomat who has worked for both parties has to offer, no surprise the US Middle east policy is such a big failure.
The US should do the opposite of all what Mr Burns suggested and even better, Get out of the ME.
The US should do the opposite of all what Mr Burns suggested and even better, Get out of the ME.
33
Is Burns another Clinton hanger-on, angling for a job just like the legion of advisers to her campaign? If so, another good reason to vote for Sanders,
Clinton will get us into a war with Iran through our Israeli "handlers" just as sure as the Cheney chicken-hawlks. Maybe I'll toss my passsport and make for Germany as a "Syrian."
Clinton will get us into a war with Iran through our Israeli "handlers" just as sure as the Cheney chicken-hawlks. Maybe I'll toss my passsport and make for Germany as a "Syrian."
1
THE US has followed the same strategy that is being advocated here by the Author for over 30 years, which has gotten us to the brink of War with a Nuclear Capable IRAN and he wants more of the same going forward!??
HOW about coming to terms with the Genuine Interests and Security Concerns of IRAN, the Oldest Nation on Earth with over 3000 years or Recorded History, and try to design a Security Structure that includes IRAN and stop sabotaging the Process by using the Boilerplate statements such as : "The Largest State Sponsor of Terror et al".
For over 2500 years, IRAN has been the most important Nation from China to Europe and Africa and it is time to "Start Thinking & Acting Rationally" as the Germans and the rest of the Europeans are doing, not to mention the Chinese and the Russians (THEY CANNOT ALL BE WRONG)!
A Secure, Stable and Prosperous IRAN holds the key to Peace and Security from Central Asia to South Asia to North Africa and beyond
HOW about coming to terms with the Genuine Interests and Security Concerns of IRAN, the Oldest Nation on Earth with over 3000 years or Recorded History, and try to design a Security Structure that includes IRAN and stop sabotaging the Process by using the Boilerplate statements such as : "The Largest State Sponsor of Terror et al".
For over 2500 years, IRAN has been the most important Nation from China to Europe and Africa and it is time to "Start Thinking & Acting Rationally" as the Germans and the rest of the Europeans are doing, not to mention the Chinese and the Russians (THEY CANNOT ALL BE WRONG)!
A Secure, Stable and Prosperous IRAN holds the key to Peace and Security from Central Asia to South Asia to North Africa and beyond
29
It would seem to me that the bet policy with regards to Iran and the Middle East in general (because they are intertwined) is to stop meddling. Supporting repressive regimes in Egypt, kowtowing to the Saudis and letting Israel build illegal settlements. Those are how you inflame the area.
It would seem clear that nearly everything thing the US has done in the Middle East from overthrowing Mossadegh to invading Iraq has turned out wrong.
A complete re-assessment of our role needs to take place but unfortunately will never happen because of the multitude of competing forces both internal and external.
It would seem clear that nearly everything thing the US has done in the Middle East from overthrowing Mossadegh to invading Iraq has turned out wrong.
A complete re-assessment of our role needs to take place but unfortunately will never happen because of the multitude of competing forces both internal and external.
15
Much respect to Mr. Burns, but standing side-by-side with Netanyahu? Really?
This is not about and should not be about Israel's security. This is about the best interests of the US and the world. We will have one enemy less and one less nuclaer state as a result of this deal.
Israel has one sure-shot way of ensuring their security. Make peace with the Palestinians and given them back at least 30% of their stolen land.
This is not about and should not be about Israel's security. This is about the best interests of the US and the world. We will have one enemy less and one less nuclaer state as a result of this deal.
Israel has one sure-shot way of ensuring their security. Make peace with the Palestinians and given them back at least 30% of their stolen land.
30
This has nothing in it for the US. Release the US prisoners.
1
These suggestions (I hope the POTUS ignores) would come close to making sense if it were not true that in the author’s own words not one of: “…the 301 Republicans in the Senate and House is likely to vote for the deal…”. Most Republicans rejected the agreement before they even read a single sentence of the deal. Mr. Obama would be insane (Def: doing the same ineffective thing over and over again, and expecting a different result) The Republicans have shown no evidence that they are in the least interested in working with the President on anything except his resignation; he is not now, and has never been their President. Finally, Mr. Obama should not stand “side by side” with a foreign nation’s leader who openly stabbed him in his. Mr. Netanyahu’s open disrespect of our President in the chamber of the US congress, was disgraceful as it was condescending. The Republicans are looking at the congressional veto math; and so they send Mr. Burns out with a “white flag” of cooperation; it is their last hope of denying Mr. Obama (and the Democrats) a foreign policy victory; well Mr. Burns should be sent back to their camp, along with his white flag.
19
You really had me. Even the Netanyahu comment was spot on - although I find most NYT and their facile blaming of Israel ignorant and reductionist.
But the Republicans sent Nicholas Burns? How utterly ridiculous. The man is one of the best informed, most important American diplomats of the 21st century. If you don't like his opinion, provide arguments against it beyond labeling.
But the Republicans sent Nicholas Burns? How utterly ridiculous. The man is one of the best informed, most important American diplomats of the 21st century. If you don't like his opinion, provide arguments against it beyond labeling.
1
Latest poll from Washington Post for those who keep mentioning an old poll.
"A survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation finds that Americans narrowly support the deal, with 52 percent wanting Congress to approve it and 47 percent wanting the pact rejected.
Democrats and Republicans are polar opposites in their view of the accord, which would lift international sanctions against the Islamic republic in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program so it cannot build nuclear weapons for a decade or longer. Nearly 7 in 10 Democrats support the deal. An identical share of Republicans are opposed. Among independents, 6 in 10 express support."
"A survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation finds that Americans narrowly support the deal, with 52 percent wanting Congress to approve it and 47 percent wanting the pact rejected.
Democrats and Republicans are polar opposites in their view of the accord, which would lift international sanctions against the Islamic republic in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program so it cannot build nuclear weapons for a decade or longer. Nearly 7 in 10 Democrats support the deal. An identical share of Republicans are opposed. Among independents, 6 in 10 express support."
8
With all of the complexities of the middle-east, diplomacy from the White House has bartered a deal to kick the Iran-Nuke capability down the road. The GOP's spin is that Iran will go totally nuclear if this happens. Given the track record of the US in that region, that notion is completely implausible. Look at Iraq, our weapons inspectors did not find one iota of evidence of weapons of mass destruction and we still destroyed that country. Examples abound as to why this deal would at worst delay another risky armed conflict in that region. The GOP are of this and what we are seeing is false flag politicking as usual. No attempt at real solutions only impediments to the Obama presidency. Just this morning I saw a bumper sticker that read "End of an ERROR, January 2, 2017. The GOP are trying the dirtiest to see this happen, but, at the end of the day, Obama is just another politician, real support for him from the GOP would have helped to substantiate their myth of a post racial America. They have only shown that we still have issues to deal with regarding that subject.
9
So now the right's literally drooling all over itself over the prospect of using military force against Iran. Let's see...A decade ago we accepted their "wisdom" and applied the full force of American might against Iraq, believing we'd avenge 9/11, that the Iranians would welcome us with open arms, that a benign capitalist utopia would replace Saddam's brutal dictatorship, and that our tanks would be overflowing with cheap Iraqi fuel. Instead we got ISIS. Boy, that sure worked out well!
15
And what, pray tell, should the US Congress do next? I look forward to your next NY Times op ed piece for those words of wisdom. Back in the day, when Iraq was a counter weight to Iran, it seems the Congress played a roll in getting rid of that leverage to cause our current sorry state of affairs. Certainly there are prescriptions for ALL of the parties for sage solutions!
2
When will American political establishment realise that they are only one member of an international negotiating team? The European viewpoint diminishes the country's credibility and enforces the power of the Israel lobby.
2
Don't understand your comment. Europe certainly doesn't want to enforce the power of the Israel lobby.
3
While the Hill is tearing itself apart, we are looking on in bemusement as to why the Israel lobby has such control, meanwhile businesses from the other negotiating partners are signing lucrative deals. In the UK, the Israel lobby has more power than you think.
1
With all due respect to Mr. Burns, this is exactly the wrong strategy, and a fight of the wrong war. The right fight isn't "with Iran in the middle east" (in truth Iran is no match for the United States), but between the liberals and the hardliners in Iran. All that Mr. Burns suggests here (much of which has already been telegraphed by the Obama administration under pressure from the very people who are opposing the agreement, who one guesses, have their yellow cake and eat it too) will weaken the liberals in Iran and strengthen the hardliners.
You need to ask yourself if Israel has however many nukes and Pakistan has the "Islamic bomb"(which one guesses is a Sunni sectarian) which the Saudis sort of lay claim to now and then because it is said they financed it (witness their imperial request to Pakistan to join their coalition of the willing in Yemen) how much sense it makes to Iran to remain "naked"? U.S. allies with their sponsor looking on, already started the nuke arms race long ago. What would you do, if you were Iranian?
So, while of course it makes sense to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, confrontation should not be the only tool you look to here (if you are truly brave, because the main opposition is within). Do not reflexively do things, set strong negative terms only, to which they will feel they have to respond in kind. This just creates a self fulfilling prophecy of enmity or war, delayed. Perfectly fine to many of those opposing the agreement.
You need to ask yourself if Israel has however many nukes and Pakistan has the "Islamic bomb"(which one guesses is a Sunni sectarian) which the Saudis sort of lay claim to now and then because it is said they financed it (witness their imperial request to Pakistan to join their coalition of the willing in Yemen) how much sense it makes to Iran to remain "naked"? U.S. allies with their sponsor looking on, already started the nuke arms race long ago. What would you do, if you were Iranian?
So, while of course it makes sense to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, confrontation should not be the only tool you look to here (if you are truly brave, because the main opposition is within). Do not reflexively do things, set strong negative terms only, to which they will feel they have to respond in kind. This just creates a self fulfilling prophecy of enmity or war, delayed. Perfectly fine to many of those opposing the agreement.
66
Strongly agree with everything in this comment. It really makes my own comment unnecessary.
4
If only supporters of the agreement with Iran had $30 or $40 million to counter the misleading, ridiculous ads that Israel and its agents are flooding our airways with. Perhaps the President should go to Israel and address Israelis to give them the facts about the agreement and the alternative to it, like Bibi did here. The Israelis have hundreds of nukes and they are the reason that any country in the Middle East. Israel has 8 million people and they have all the nukes in the Middle East. Iran has 78 million people, Do we really have to continue to give Israel more and more aid when they try to influence our people and our Congress to do that which is not in our best interests? Bibi pushed for the Iraq War, along with all the neocons who are pushing for rejection of this agreement. They have no realistic alternative to the agreement except a war with Iran. Bibi would like nothing better than for the US to get in a war with Iran, and the neocons in the US want one, too. If diplomacy is shown to work with Iran, the right-wingers in the US and in Israel will be shown to be the war mongers they are.
18
Israel's wants and needs are not really the center of the American/Iranian relationship but I am not going to comment on the that. It's pointless. The NYT and its commentators are not rational when it comes to Israel.
That irrationality is what I wish to comment on.
That irrationality is only because Israel is the Jewish state. The world has not. for 2,000 years, been rational about Jews.
Israel's nukes have always been defensive and everyone knows it. Iran developed a nuclear program to become a hegemonic power in the region. not in answer to Israel which never threatened Iran.
Israel's only nuclear threat is that if its security is ignored and it is backed in a corner, it could act in desperation. So because of nukes Israel cannot be ignored or existentially threatened.
Without those nukes, you can guarantee the death of the state of Israel and Jews worldwide because the non- Jewish world will never stop scapegoating Jews as the secret evil power behind their troubles, especially in especially troubling times.
People who understand the history of Jews for 2,000 years understand why Jews need nuclear weapons. It is the commentators who talk about Zionist control (funny, if AIPAC is secretly runs Congress how many battles they lose ie Hagel, Iran) and Israel being the tail that wags the dog that feel the Jews should be defenseless. Hmm
That irrationality is what I wish to comment on.
That irrationality is only because Israel is the Jewish state. The world has not. for 2,000 years, been rational about Jews.
Israel's nukes have always been defensive and everyone knows it. Iran developed a nuclear program to become a hegemonic power in the region. not in answer to Israel which never threatened Iran.
Israel's only nuclear threat is that if its security is ignored and it is backed in a corner, it could act in desperation. So because of nukes Israel cannot be ignored or existentially threatened.
Without those nukes, you can guarantee the death of the state of Israel and Jews worldwide because the non- Jewish world will never stop scapegoating Jews as the secret evil power behind their troubles, especially in especially troubling times.
People who understand the history of Jews for 2,000 years understand why Jews need nuclear weapons. It is the commentators who talk about Zionist control (funny, if AIPAC is secretly runs Congress how many battles they lose ie Hagel, Iran) and Israel being the tail that wags the dog that feel the Jews should be defenseless. Hmm
2
With due respects, Mr. Burns rationale and logic comes across as nothing but jaded conventional rhetoric.
As a US Citizen, I wouldn't send my dog to stand shoulder to shoulder with Bibi much less my President given his recent behavior. All Republican and Israeli rhetoric aside, I doubt the Israeli masses are having any sleepless nights over this accord given their overwhelming military (and economic) superiority relative to Iran (with or without nuclear weapons in post-2030 world. And who is to say the Mullahs would be as powerful 15 years from now as they are today).
And last but not the least, I fail to see Iran as the only villain in the Middle-East. Who is the villain for whom is a matter of perspective as well as historical facts and context when it comes to "Causes and Effects." One can easily add the names of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, America and colonial powers to the list of villains in Middle-East.
As a US Citizen, I wouldn't send my dog to stand shoulder to shoulder with Bibi much less my President given his recent behavior. All Republican and Israeli rhetoric aside, I doubt the Israeli masses are having any sleepless nights over this accord given their overwhelming military (and economic) superiority relative to Iran (with or without nuclear weapons in post-2030 world. And who is to say the Mullahs would be as powerful 15 years from now as they are today).
And last but not the least, I fail to see Iran as the only villain in the Middle-East. Who is the villain for whom is a matter of perspective as well as historical facts and context when it comes to "Causes and Effects." One can easily add the names of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, America and colonial powers to the list of villains in Middle-East.
22
Genuine, sober debate is beyond the skill set of most conservatives. DEBATE is beyond their abilities. They shout, lecture, and make statements, but they never ask questions. If the measure fails to pass, it will come back to bite them all, eventually. As well, Democrats beware of the consequences.
3
No disrespect, Mr. Burns, I disagree. The Iran Deal is the new US sells AWACS to the Saudis and just as ridiculous. Now AIPAC & Donors will attempt to remove every Congress Critter that votes for the Deal, as they did with AWAC Deal. I lost my Gop Senator Percy IL, Head of Foreign Relations, a good man. Mike Wallace told me all about it on 60 minutes.
This is a stupid way to run Foreign Policy.
This is a stupid way to run Foreign Policy.
10
Sadly Burns' suffers from the delusion that started this deal. What is that delusion? The idea that you can trust evil to do good. It is that simple. When you bargain with the Devil you will always lose, as the Devil is a higher power for which mere humans are no match. O has sold his soul as part of this deal. Pray for him.
2
It is ludicrous to think that threats will force Iran to change. Iraq, on the verge of war, didn't, it took the invasion, knowing full well that it didn't have WMD. This cowboy mentality doesn't work well, a deal has worked with Russia, and diplomacy and commerce has worked with China, why not give it a try? Being tough doesn't mean strength, and negotiating doesn't translate to weakness. We invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and bombed Libya, what do we have to show for?
58
"knowing it didn't have WMD"? Bob Woodward, the most decorated American journalist said at the time "there is zero chance Iraq doesn't have WMD". All intelligence agencies believe Iraq had WMD. Saddam wanted them to think it. Intelligence was wrong in 2003, and it was wrong in 1991 when it said Iraq did not. And wrong about Pakistan, it is often wrong. Why do you make up history to say US Gov't knew Iraq had no WMD in 2003? Even Colin Powell believed it, much to his regret later, and he was at the top.
1
Mr. Burns should know that sectarian violence and differences cannot be resolved by western countries including the US. He should also know there are no sectarian sides to take if trying to be a force for diplomacy. Our past has had a Sunni bias when dealing with Shia conflicts, generally,but not all. The US has a Israeli bias when dealing with Arab conflicts, generally, but not all.
Getting to a more unbiased center for diplomacy, will require a lot of work and needs cooperation between antagonists. Perhaps there could even be a meeting of the minds concerning ISSIS, a force that threatens or seems to threaten all other sectarian parties.
Getting to a more unbiased center for diplomacy, will require a lot of work and needs cooperation between antagonists. Perhaps there could even be a meeting of the minds concerning ISSIS, a force that threatens or seems to threaten all other sectarian parties.
1
But surely the Republican leadership will not waste time worrying over the Iran deal when Congress could be voting again to repeal Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood. Try to concentrate.
8
Somehow, President Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill and a majority of Americans have to find a way to ease the great fear which drives everything the Republican politicians do.
The fear is not a fear of Iranian nuclear capability. The fear is the fear that, unless Republicans act in lock-step obedience to their leaders, they will become irrelevant on everything.
The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. If individual Republicans do not break the restraints of mandatory conformity to the orders of their leaders, they will become strangers to the national dialogue and prisoners of their bosses.
The lobbyists and big donors will continue to pull the strings of each Republican officeholder like malevolent puppet masters.
The fear is not a fear of Iranian nuclear capability. The fear is the fear that, unless Republicans act in lock-step obedience to their leaders, they will become irrelevant on everything.
The truth, of course, is exactly the opposite. If individual Republicans do not break the restraints of mandatory conformity to the orders of their leaders, they will become strangers to the national dialogue and prisoners of their bosses.
The lobbyists and big donors will continue to pull the strings of each Republican officeholder like malevolent puppet masters.
9
Our Country's History has shown us wars have not won us victories. Instead we find ourselves in conundrums from which it is almost impossible to extricate ourselves. The wars we did win ( the Cold War ) was won without firing a single shot. Establishing relations with Cuba have won us acceptability into the Conference Of Americas, with many hostile countries toning down the anti-American rhetoric. We have had more support from allies with diplomacy. So too with the Iran Deal. It was not a Deal with us alone but with five other countries. Do want to risk losing our real allies and credibility rather than giving in to two cantankerous allies who thumb our noses, time in and time again. Why should we lose American lives and treasure and most important credibility for these so called allies. These allies with the help of our own elected officials will be our downfall. Let the Iran Deal go through. We'll be the richer for that and Iran too will prosper with a long delay to their nuclear ambitions. Just plain common-sense tells us that this so.
5
The Obama Administration's Foreign Policy in the Middle East is a shambles. The Iran deal seams like nothing so much as a farce designed to tear NATO, and the US Israeli relationship both into pieces. If it had been designed by leftist radicals on the Berkley Campus in the sixties it couldn't be more emblematic of US retreat from the Middle East, and, by extension the eventual abandonment of the Mediterranean, Eastern, and Southern Europe.
Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh, Ali Ali Khamenei.
Iran may be run by religious fanatics, but at least they are willing to fight to the end for their beliefs. They don't say concession, or war. like the Obama klatch. They say concede, and wait for us to act at a time and place of our choosing. You know, super power language.
And when the Shia Iranians develop their nuclear arsenal in secret, and expand their terrorist operations under their nuclear umbrella, the way any number of Sunni extremists have been operating under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella since September 2001, it is more than likely a number of democratic policy wonks will blame the Republicans, because, you know, George W. Bush.
Ho-Ho-Ho Chi Minh, Ali Ali Khamenei.
Iran may be run by religious fanatics, but at least they are willing to fight to the end for their beliefs. They don't say concession, or war. like the Obama klatch. They say concede, and wait for us to act at a time and place of our choosing. You know, super power language.
And when the Shia Iranians develop their nuclear arsenal in secret, and expand their terrorist operations under their nuclear umbrella, the way any number of Sunni extremists have been operating under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella since September 2001, it is more than likely a number of democratic policy wonks will blame the Republicans, because, you know, George W. Bush.
7
The next president will get saddled with implementing this very bad deal, and when Iran doesn't comply, the next president will be blamed (especially if a republican).
It won't be the deal, itself, that failed. It will be the naysayers who fail to somehow "see" its success, who refuse to acknowledge anything good about Obama, blah, blah, blah.
The Obama spinners will have made sure this deal is spun as a success. Just like they spun the ACA. They have a way of spinning narratives. As long as there is a republican within 10 feet, they've got their scapegoat.
It won't be the deal, itself, that failed. It will be the naysayers who fail to somehow "see" its success, who refuse to acknowledge anything good about Obama, blah, blah, blah.
The Obama spinners will have made sure this deal is spun as a success. Just like they spun the ACA. They have a way of spinning narratives. As long as there is a republican within 10 feet, they've got their scapegoat.
1
Just as Republicans believe every citizen should be armed for self defense, they should let every country have bombs for self defense just as our allies Israel, Pakistan, and India. North Korea has bombs that Bush ignored and even less friends than Iran, but is further from Israel.
1
I started reading this Op Ed with interest until it ended up leading (yet again) to recommendation for increased support for Israel. Israel, the ONLY nuclear power in the Middle East.
9
It's a little late to be demanding a "genuine, sober debate". That should have transpired before the president agree to forfeit sanctions based on little more than "hope". Ditto for worrying about weakening credibility. The president's credibility is suffering at home.
As for looking "beyond the Iran vote", after the president has already agreed to lifting sanctions and opened the money spigot to Iran, suddenly the onus is on everyone else to make sure Iran complies -- without any leverage, thanks to the elimination of sanctions?
Do us all a favor and keep the president away from any further agreements.
As for looking "beyond the Iran vote", after the president has already agreed to lifting sanctions and opened the money spigot to Iran, suddenly the onus is on everyone else to make sure Iran complies -- without any leverage, thanks to the elimination of sanctions?
Do us all a favor and keep the president away from any further agreements.
6
Obama should have Donald Trump renegotiate the agreement!
5
Blah, blah, blah, blah. Mr. Obama will have to be content to have his veto sustained in Congress because Republicans are thoroughly unreasonable and don't have the country's best interests in mind. They are the biggest threat I see to our national security.
Standing side by side with Netanyahu is something nobody should be asked to do. The glaring gap between the two leaders is completely the fault of the Israeli and the people who continue to elect him.
Mr. Burns must live in some alternative universe.
Standing side by side with Netanyahu is something nobody should be asked to do. The glaring gap between the two leaders is completely the fault of the Israeli and the people who continue to elect him.
Mr. Burns must live in some alternative universe.
22
What would be productive is for Burns to have changed some Republican minds. Instead we’re told that Rs are right to “highlight the deal’s principal weakness.”
Churchill said he would go to Hell to do a deal with the Devil to defeat the Nazis. After WW II the alliance with the Soviets ended.
Just supply 1 credible answer as to how any R or D boasting s/he would unilaterally walk away from the deal would get Russia & China, let alone the Europeans, to once again impose sanctions against Iran for anything other than Iran ceasing its nuclear program. If you can, I’ll join in opposing the deal. If you can’t, then it is just election posturing, so why did you join in?
As to trusting Iran, Reagan did the Iran Contra deal w/ Iran; Rumsfeld shock hands w/ Saddam as the U.S. supported Iraq in its war of aggression w/ Iran that included the use of WMDs, chemical weapons; the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airplane w/ almost 300 passengers, etc. What has Iran done to the U.S. other than some crowds chanting “death to America?”
When you served under W did you oppose the war w/ Iraq? Support Jay Garner or replacing him w/ Bremer? Disbanding the Iraqi army & banning former members & Bathists from participation in public life? Did you oppose putting Maliki, an Iranian stooge, in charge who stirred up the Shia Sunni warfare giving the opening to ISIS?
Perhaps you can say why W was unable to stop or slow down Iran’s nuclear progress or why the Rs are not responsible for that failure?
Churchill said he would go to Hell to do a deal with the Devil to defeat the Nazis. After WW II the alliance with the Soviets ended.
Just supply 1 credible answer as to how any R or D boasting s/he would unilaterally walk away from the deal would get Russia & China, let alone the Europeans, to once again impose sanctions against Iran for anything other than Iran ceasing its nuclear program. If you can, I’ll join in opposing the deal. If you can’t, then it is just election posturing, so why did you join in?
As to trusting Iran, Reagan did the Iran Contra deal w/ Iran; Rumsfeld shock hands w/ Saddam as the U.S. supported Iraq in its war of aggression w/ Iran that included the use of WMDs, chemical weapons; the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airplane w/ almost 300 passengers, etc. What has Iran done to the U.S. other than some crowds chanting “death to America?”
When you served under W did you oppose the war w/ Iraq? Support Jay Garner or replacing him w/ Bremer? Disbanding the Iraqi army & banning former members & Bathists from participation in public life? Did you oppose putting Maliki, an Iranian stooge, in charge who stirred up the Shia Sunni warfare giving the opening to ISIS?
Perhaps you can say why W was unable to stop or slow down Iran’s nuclear progress or why the Rs are not responsible for that failure?
10
This column sounds like a Likud party speech.
20
Please state the last time "American leadership in the Middle East" redounded to the benefit of the Middle East, or America.
6
These are some good suggestions that would make the Iranian deal more palatable for those of us that don't agree with it.
4
Why bother signing a treaty with Iran if the only follow on action by the US is to bully, coerce and threaten Iran with force and the possibility of military strikes?
This is precisely the moronic approach that has brought the US to the brink of war with so many countries who actually are natural allies (and to actual war with countries the US should never have fought).
This is precisely the moronic approach that has brought the US to the brink of war with so many countries who actually are natural allies (and to actual war with countries the US should never have fought).
11
The world economy must move away from oil. This means the ME will fade in importance as it bakes in rising temperatures. Thus our interest should be to help them cope and work out peaceful solutions if they can. But, most of all, stop feeding arms and dollars into a viper's pit. Enough with the saber rattling and interference.
5
The whole premise that Obama should do something to gain some republican support for the treaty is a nonsense.
The fact is that democrats allow different points of view which, in this case, resulted in some members of Congress voting against the President. Republicans, in turn, live in their irrational partisan cocoon which translated in no single member of Congress supporting the treaty.
So then, why should Obama waste his time?
The fact is that democrats allow different points of view which, in this case, resulted in some members of Congress voting against the President. Republicans, in turn, live in their irrational partisan cocoon which translated in no single member of Congress supporting the treaty.
So then, why should Obama waste his time?
7
"With geopolitical stakes as high as they are, we had a right to hope for a more genuine, sober debate. Instead, on a war-and-peace issue that will affect American power in the Middle East for a generation to come, not a single one of the 301 Republicans in the Senate and House is likely to vote for the deal."
Shorter version: We have a group of elected officials who willingly engage in political posturing rather than serving the urgent needs of our nation. Burns focuses on GOP misbehavior, but there is plenty of party dysfunction on both sides of the aisle. The campaigns of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are a direct response to behavior by both GOP and Democratic leadership. Expect to see fireworks soon, as both parties learn that the voters are "mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore......"
Shorter version: We have a group of elected officials who willingly engage in political posturing rather than serving the urgent needs of our nation. Burns focuses on GOP misbehavior, but there is plenty of party dysfunction on both sides of the aisle. The campaigns of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are a direct response to behavior by both GOP and Democratic leadership. Expect to see fireworks soon, as both parties learn that the voters are "mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore......"
3
It is harmful fantasy to imagine that Obama could get bipartisan support. The Republicans would not support him on Apple Pie.
Burns suggests pandering to Republicans by crawling to Israel despite its behavior, and by bashing Iran despite their doing a deal with us, and by getting in bed with the Saudis who are in all respects worse than Iran as to any of the factors mentioned -- they even have nuclear delivery systems and presumed access to Pakistani origin weapons from funding that program.
Doing these things would be to cave in to all of the worst forces in the world.
We should do exactly the opposite of Burns suggestions, exactly the opposite of every single one of them.
Rein in Israel by slapping down Netanyahu hard, very hard, regime change hard.
Pursue further peace with Iran. See where it can go. Be creative. Make peace not war.
Finally call the Saudis to account for all they have done from 9/11 to Iraq (they were off side) to Syria(al Qaeda there is theirs) to Yemen (food as a weapons and reckless bombing of civilians) and all the jihadi craziness of their Wahhabi nonsense.
Burns suggests pandering to Republicans by crawling to Israel despite its behavior, and by bashing Iran despite their doing a deal with us, and by getting in bed with the Saudis who are in all respects worse than Iran as to any of the factors mentioned -- they even have nuclear delivery systems and presumed access to Pakistani origin weapons from funding that program.
Doing these things would be to cave in to all of the worst forces in the world.
We should do exactly the opposite of Burns suggestions, exactly the opposite of every single one of them.
Rein in Israel by slapping down Netanyahu hard, very hard, regime change hard.
Pursue further peace with Iran. See where it can go. Be creative. Make peace not war.
Finally call the Saudis to account for all they have done from 9/11 to Iraq (they were off side) to Syria(al Qaeda there is theirs) to Yemen (food as a weapons and reckless bombing of civilians) and all the jihadi craziness of their Wahhabi nonsense.
25
The foolishness and willful blindness of Obama diehard supporters never ends. The president cannot even forge a deal with republicans, but somehow Iran is going to comply with his terms? And when the mullahs fail to comply, what then? Blame republicans? Blame Israel? No, it will, no doubt, require a change the definition of "success".
Supporting Obama requires one to live in an altered reality, wherein leopards change their spots (except for GOP leopards, who are always evil). The rest of us don't have to engage in this kind of fantastical thinking.
Supporting Obama requires one to live in an altered reality, wherein leopards change their spots (except for GOP leopards, who are always evil). The rest of us don't have to engage in this kind of fantastical thinking.
1
If the Republicans in Congress had an ounce - even a single ounce - of patriotism and common sense, they would be having this kind of debate and discussion with the President over an issue of such magnitude. Instead they have remained stuck in the "if he is for it, we are against it" strategy they adopted seven years ago, regardless of the issue or consequences to the nation. that they will vote as a block against it speaks volumes about how irresponsibly they are playing politics with the nation's security.
10
Not one Republican will support the Iran nuclear agreement --that is sad. But, I also recall, not one Republican supported Obamacare and that program has worked well so far. I was critical of Mr Obama for not pursuing a bipartisan deal on healthcare. Sadly I have come to the conclusion that the republican party will not work with this President on anything for whatever reason. Most of President Obama's legacy will be getting things done, unilaterally, despite unified republican opposition. So, to me, the republican opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement is one more example of republican intransigence. Listening to their Presidential hopefuls, it sounds like "no new taxes" and "war with everyone" are the republican core values. It is really a sad time in American history.
12
This is s straight forward agreement: in exchange for only sanctions relief, Iran will dramatically reduce its stockpiles, agree not to enrich for 25 years, to the most stringent inspection regime ever, and that if it violates the terms the sanctions immediately snap back into place. The alternative is that Iran continues to have the short term ability to build a nuclear weapon within a few months and the west has no inspections and only military means to stop nuclear breakout. In this agreement Iran agrees not to build nuclear weapons (with no expiration date) and if, after 25 years Iran attempts to do so, the west will be required to deal with it then through sanctions and military means, but with much more information about the Iranian capabilities and facilities. The main criticism of the deal is that it the west will be required to enforce Iran's agreement not to build nuclear weapons in 25 years. In fact, having secured the agreement not to construct weapons and with much more information, the west should be better positioned to do so. Burns is correct that President Obama should clearly state our long term commitment to no nuclear weapons in Iran and that the west will use all available means to prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons. But this deal is in the best interests of the U.S. and the developed world. Its republican critics are placing short term politics over the good of the country.
1
He lost me with the implied assertion that defending Saudi Arabia is in our best interest. Our best interest is developing solar and alternative energy, and letting the petulant children that are the powers in that region, all of which are enthralled with their own Stone Age religion go back to what they do best- throwing rocks at each other.
Why we, who overthrow, invade and push around anyone we want with impunity should be able to decide alone who has nukes defies rational analysis.
When we get rid of our nukes, and have trillions to invest as a consequence, we will have the moral standing to demand others do the same. Until then the whole thing is embarrassing.
Why we, who overthrow, invade and push around anyone we want with impunity should be able to decide alone who has nukes defies rational analysis.
When we get rid of our nukes, and have trillions to invest as a consequence, we will have the moral standing to demand others do the same. Until then the whole thing is embarrassing.
8
According to Mr. Burns, it is unacceptable for Iran to want to exert influence in the actual region in which it is located! It would be like Russia or Iran wanting to stop the US from exerting its influence over the Americas. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling!
And who exactly are our 'moderate' Arab friends that should be allowed to exert their influence in the area?? Bastions of human rights and liberty like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan?
And who exactly are our 'moderate' Arab friends that should be allowed to exert their influence in the area?? Bastions of human rights and liberty like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan?
8
Yes this deal is not comparable in magnitude to the Iraq invasion - that was an irrational mutant act with no known justification. This deal is an exercise in rational problem solving - like most compromises, neither side is completely satisfied. The Republican attitude is on the same order of perverse malediction however. I suppose that in order for there to be good, there has to be bad, and they are filling this role completely. The beat goes on.
90
The Republican attitude is no compromise, no sharing the pie, no diplomacy, no peace. It's what makes them the jerks they are, instead of the governing body they should be.
To argue that the invasion of Iraq was "... an irrational mutant act with no known justification..." is dangerously wrong. The war served Israel's purposes and those of the military-industrial complex. There were other determinants. It was not just a random event. It deserves careful study.
Will Mr. Burns ever demand the Israelis be held to the same nuclear weapons standards as the Iranians?
6
Have the Israelis ever called Iran a cancer that should be wiped out? Or provided terrorists groups with thousands of missiles for attacking civilians?
Indeed, in days before the mullahs took over, Israel provided relief workers and doctors when iran suffered devastating earthquakes.
Edelman's call is just a diversion --if not worse--from the main issue of Iran spending billions of dollars for a program that gives them a nuclear weapons option not just electrical power.
Indeed, in days before the mullahs took over, Israel provided relief workers and doctors when iran suffered devastating earthquakes.
Edelman's call is just a diversion --if not worse--from the main issue of Iran spending billions of dollars for a program that gives them a nuclear weapons option not just electrical power.
1
There is nothing in this deal that prevents the U.S. from a military action in 2030 if Iran takes the road toward nuclear arms. With or without the deal, that sword will always be hanging over their heads. And the Iranians know it. So I don't quite understand what is accomplished by the President reiterating that fact, other than some feel-good chest pounding.
The Republicans in this country, and the Bibi-led conservatives in Israel, have long ago made a conscious decision to not cooperate with this President. Making nice to them now will only be seen as weakness.
The Republicans in this country, and the Bibi-led conservatives in Israel, have long ago made a conscious decision to not cooperate with this President. Making nice to them now will only be seen as weakness.
6
I am tired of hearing from Obama apologists that the Deal should be passed despite its clearly fatal flaws. Obama/Kerry presented our elected representatives with a fait accompli, with no disclosure during the negotiation process and therefore no opportunity for input from anyone other than the negotiating team. Indeed, the repercussions of "Obama's Legacy" are likely to be seen even before he leaves office.
6
I think Obama believes that through this agreement, he is pivoting back to American leadership in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, it's as ineffective as his leadership in the US.
1
There appears to be seismic shift in the attitudes of American Jews and the American public who are speaking out in much larger numbers hailing the pending historic nuclear accord with Iran. Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s polarizing attitude and his determination to demonize our president has a lot to do with these changing attitudes. Supporters of the accord are no longer intimidated by the well-worn accusations of anti-Semitism.
Netanyahu has lost all credibility. He has spent decades claiming that Iran is moments away from acquiring nuclear bomb making capabilities – a rather clumsy fear-mongering campaign designed to distract the world from Israel’s appalling history of oppressing Palestinians of basic human rights.
While timid politicians, backed by AIPAC and other extreme-‘pro-Israel’ groups are only too eager to support Netanyahu, American Jews are growing increasingly disaffected. Polls show 49% now supports the accord. It’s time the American public demand that Israel dismantle its huge stockpile of nuclear weapons which pose an existential threat to its neighbors.
In spite of AIPAC’s deep pockets, its polar opposite JVP (Jewish Voices for Peace) has seen a huge surge in its membership. I urge Americans to join JVP which promotes diplomacy over perpetual war, universal human rights, and vigorously opposes the suffering occupation and dispossession of Palestinian land.
Netanyahu has lost all credibility. He has spent decades claiming that Iran is moments away from acquiring nuclear bomb making capabilities – a rather clumsy fear-mongering campaign designed to distract the world from Israel’s appalling history of oppressing Palestinians of basic human rights.
While timid politicians, backed by AIPAC and other extreme-‘pro-Israel’ groups are only too eager to support Netanyahu, American Jews are growing increasingly disaffected. Polls show 49% now supports the accord. It’s time the American public demand that Israel dismantle its huge stockpile of nuclear weapons which pose an existential threat to its neighbors.
In spite of AIPAC’s deep pockets, its polar opposite JVP (Jewish Voices for Peace) has seen a huge surge in its membership. I urge Americans to join JVP which promotes diplomacy over perpetual war, universal human rights, and vigorously opposes the suffering occupation and dispossession of Palestinian land.
12
Although I support the agreement call ypu cannot ignore Iran spending billions of dollars for a program that gives them a nuclear weapons option not just electrical power. This concern is not a diversion from settling the Palestinian issue.
Calling Israel to dismantle its nuclear stockpile is naive and disingenuous.
Israelis has never called Iran a cancer that should be wiped out./ Indeed, in days before the mullahs took over, Israel provided relief workers and doctors when iran suffered devastating earthquakes.
If AJP for peace was really so concerned about peace and disposession of the Palestinians it might direct its efforts to lowering the temperatures by pressing Hamas to stop diverting cement into building more tunnels and missile launching pads. It might also pay some attention t o the PA's glorification of terrorists and the anti-Jewish incitement of its media.
The problems are not all on Israel's side.
Calling Israel to dismantle its nuclear stockpile is naive and disingenuous.
Israelis has never called Iran a cancer that should be wiped out./ Indeed, in days before the mullahs took over, Israel provided relief workers and doctors when iran suffered devastating earthquakes.
If AJP for peace was really so concerned about peace and disposession of the Palestinians it might direct its efforts to lowering the temperatures by pressing Hamas to stop diverting cement into building more tunnels and missile launching pads. It might also pay some attention t o the PA's glorification of terrorists and the anti-Jewish incitement of its media.
The problems are not all on Israel's side.
1
Quite frankly, I don't think the US and President Obama should do anything among the 4 points mentioned. First of all, the US has been the most destabilizing presence in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and North Africa. We no longer have any vital interests in the Persian Gulf. We are now essentially energy independent. We don't need to patrol the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. If we have a shortage of petroleum, just write a check to one of the many worldwide sellers of oil. Simple as that.
Second, we aren't going to involved our military in the Middle East again. Stop worrying about reassuring members of Congress and worry about the common US Citizen, like me.
Thirdly, let's not hurry to reauthorize the US-Israeli Military Assistance Agreement. What's the hurry? Instead we should recognize that it is only normal for an ethnic group to support people of the same persuasion in other parts of the world. I mean it is understandable that Shiites in Iran are upset when Sunni Arabs blow up Shiite Mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I see the Iranian point of view.
Fourth, let's not worry about "moderate" Arab states and coalitions, etc. lest we find ourselves on the wrong side being dragged into something against our better interests, for example, our support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemen in which the Saudi's are intent on killing innocent civilians.
My recommendation for you Mr. Burns, study Martin Luther King's Riverside Speech against Vietnam War.
Second, we aren't going to involved our military in the Middle East again. Stop worrying about reassuring members of Congress and worry about the common US Citizen, like me.
Thirdly, let's not hurry to reauthorize the US-Israeli Military Assistance Agreement. What's the hurry? Instead we should recognize that it is only normal for an ethnic group to support people of the same persuasion in other parts of the world. I mean it is understandable that Shiites in Iran are upset when Sunni Arabs blow up Shiite Mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I see the Iranian point of view.
Fourth, let's not worry about "moderate" Arab states and coalitions, etc. lest we find ourselves on the wrong side being dragged into something against our better interests, for example, our support for Saudi Arabia in the Yemen in which the Saudi's are intent on killing innocent civilians.
My recommendation for you Mr. Burns, study Martin Luther King's Riverside Speech against Vietnam War.
129
I couldn't agree more with Steve from LA.
You forgot number 5: the unnecessary act of going to Israel and standing side by side with Netanyahu ...
There is no reason to bluster idly in "coercive diplomacy" nor is there any need to stand with Netanyahu. It is time for the US to move aggressively in defense of our interests, not Israel's.
14
I agree with John McCutchen's comment.
1
There are two suggestions to add to "Do Next on Iran: 1. US should demand end of hostilities of Iran against Israel and Jews, local and global. Set a time table for a coexistence conference Iran/Israel/US/EU/Russia/China. Israel cannot anymore be an excuse for military build up. Iran has to recognize the right of Israel to exist. 2. President Obama got a US/Iran deal approved by UN security council bypassing US Congress, making the UN a foreign entity a US legislative party. This violation of US Constitution must be outlawed by Democrats and Republicans, make any reference to non American bodies, illegal and punishable. This will prevent unilateral draconic actions by future US presidents relaying on foreign aproval. 3. US must demand end of human rights violations in Iran. Already 1000 Iranians were executed this year. Most were dissidents, homosexuals and non Muslims. US cannot ignore the brutality of the Iranian Theocratic regime. The history of relations between Israel and Iran must be known: Israel supported Iran in its war with Iraq supplying guns, tanks, war plane parts until 1992 while Ayatollah Kummeini was the supreme leader.
2
Anyone who believes they can accurately predict what will happen in 15 years is deluding themselves. There could be a change in the Iranian regime, in the strategic balance in the region and the world, or any of 100 things none of us can reasonably foresee. Those negotiating the SALT treaty with the Soviet Union in 1975 didn't believe that their adversary would no longer exist in 15. Nothing prevents a new agreement from being negotiated in the years leading up to 2030 based on the realities in place at that time, which none of us can accurately predict.
82
Of course. And in the meantime, the chances are now high that (a) Iran will not proceed toward any nuclear weapon capacity for at least 15 years, (b) no other Middle Eastern country will do so either. It is mind-boggling that this (to me) obviously workable agreement, signed onto by the rest of the world minus Israel, has apparently absolutely zero political support by the Republicans. I certainly hope that some bipartisan support will now emerge per the editorial by Nicholas Burns. Alas, it is much more likely that we will continue to be consumed by more partisan rhetoric.
In our new political world there is no way forward for a bipartisan agreement on the Iran deal, whatever its strengths and limitations. We are entering a Presidential election year and both Democrats and Republicans are already firing up their respective bases through appeals to identity politics and/or programs designed to benefit loyal party voters.
A vote against Iran is seen as a rate opportunity to lure Jewish voters, who traditionally vote Democratic but are concerned about Israel's future, to vote for the Republican presidential candidate. No one in the Republican party is going to throw that opportunity away to support President Obama.
A vote against Iran is seen as a rate opportunity to lure Jewish voters, who traditionally vote Democratic but are concerned about Israel's future, to vote for the Republican presidential candidate. No one in the Republican party is going to throw that opportunity away to support President Obama.
2
Having served 13.5 months in Vietnam during one stupid unnecessary war where more than 55,000 of my comrades died, having lived and watched this country suffer economically fighting another stupid war in Iraq and losing almost 5,000 lives and leaving more than 20,000 limbs in the Middle East, I cannot believe that anyone in Congress would countenance another stupid war to attack and shut down the Iranian nuclear hierarchy, without first giving diplomacy and detente a chance with Iran. Lots of things can happen over ten years, and our foreign policy during that period will be challenging and difficult, but well worth doing to reduce a near term nuclear threat.
The Iran pact is not perfect, but such deals are never perfect and can never be expected to be such. But absolutist posturing in such negotiations made a deal impossible in the Bush years when Iran's capabilities were much smaller, and simplistic negotiations with Korea resulted in a meaningless deal, all the more points to the nuanced and wise approach taken in the Iran pact.
This deal has a good chance to do good things, backed up by an appropriate consistent foreign policy, so why not give it a chance?
After all, what is the real alternative?
The Iran pact is not perfect, but such deals are never perfect and can never be expected to be such. But absolutist posturing in such negotiations made a deal impossible in the Bush years when Iran's capabilities were much smaller, and simplistic negotiations with Korea resulted in a meaningless deal, all the more points to the nuanced and wise approach taken in the Iran pact.
This deal has a good chance to do good things, backed up by an appropriate consistent foreign policy, so why not give it a chance?
After all, what is the real alternative?
219
Good post. I will also point out that the 55,000 lives (plus, another 75,000 severely disabled) earned us nothing. And, the casualties in the Iraq war earned us a more powerful Iran and ISIS.
It's clear, they will suborn this agreement. They will cheat. The nature of the culture.
K
K
3
Yes, the Israelis will do that, and the Republicans will help them.
Still, the deal is with Iran and the rest of the world, not with Israel or the Republicans. They were so unreasonable they were just left out, and now they don't matter.
Still, the deal is with Iran and the rest of the world, not with Israel or the Republicans. They were so unreasonable they were just left out, and now they don't matter.
2
Congress would have been fairly powerless to do anything about the Iran deal if Democrats in the Senate had not supported legislation to limit Obama's ability to suspend congressional sanctions, something he could otherwise do. All of the President's attempts to encourage bi-partisan support for this nuclear nonproliferation plan were met with calculation and hysteria. Let Netanyahu and his minions sulk.
102
Give me a break. The GOPers decided to vote against the deal for political reasons--before they knew what the deal was--and don't care if their position makes our country worse off.
They will not be bipartisan, and they have lost. So let us not get into the mythical charm and communication deficiency.
They will not be bipartisan, and they have lost. So let us not get into the mythical charm and communication deficiency.
5
A nuclear free Middle East is in everyone's best interest. Including and especially a nuclear free Israel. Why will the detractors and opponents of the Iran deal, imperfect as it is, not admit that Israel's nuclear arsenal is a great source of tension and hostility?
As for Mr. Obama standing shoulder to shoulder with Netanyahu, I believe that day has passed. Netanyahu does not deserve this gesture, nor is he worthy of any respect. Frankly, I would be disappointed to see our President make the trip after the shenanigans the Israeli leader pulled with the endorsement, aid and enthusiasm of the GOP.
As for Mr. Obama standing shoulder to shoulder with Netanyahu, I believe that day has passed. Netanyahu does not deserve this gesture, nor is he worthy of any respect. Frankly, I would be disappointed to see our President make the trip after the shenanigans the Israeli leader pulled with the endorsement, aid and enthusiasm of the GOP.
256
I could not agree more
Thank you
Thank you
you are out of line ,you want Israel w/o nuclear capabilities?
that would be the demise of the country.
Go back to school and learn some of the history of the middle east in the last 70 years and you will retract your comments.
that would be the demise of the country.
Go back to school and learn some of the history of the middle east in the last 70 years and you will retract your comments.
2
Israel's nuclear arsenal a great source of tension and hostility??? When?? They have never threatened their neighbors with annihilation. Why are the Saudis now cooperating with Israel?? Not because they fear the Israeli's nukes.
2
“… Mr. Obama should declare that he and his successors will not permit Iran to go nuclear.” But I believe the President has already stated this position quite emphatically during his term in office.
5
I categorically and absolutely reject Suggestion Number 2, that this President Constitutionally may or strategically should purport to subject this nation to another's option to trigger war. Only a declaration of war from the Congress sitting then on the question of "a drive toward a nuclear weapon." God help us, the galloping indiscipline in American militarism since George W. Bush has been rejected in two Presidential elections and this is no time to revert to gross corruption of our Constitutional processes. Equally importantly, as in Petraeus' & Dennis Ross' insistence in The Washington Post last week upon the same foul concession, it ought not to be the business of this nation to allow its foreign policy ever to be directed by that of a friend, much less by that of an adversary. An option to require America to go to war? Are you out of your mind, sir?
3
Mr. Burns: If you had a button you could press that would today instantly deliver a working nuclear bomb to Iran's military for them to use as they see fit, would you push the button?
Most intelligent and rational people would say "No".
Subsequently, if you had a button you could press that would deliver a working nuclear bomb to Iran's military, only 10 years from now instead of instantly, would you push it then?
Because those who favor the "deal" created by POTUS are answering "Yes" to that second question.
Most intelligent and rational people would say "No".
Subsequently, if you had a button you could press that would deliver a working nuclear bomb to Iran's military, only 10 years from now instead of instantly, would you push it then?
Because those who favor the "deal" created by POTUS are answering "Yes" to that second question.
3
Rather than parroting Israel's twaddle, why not recognize Hamas and Hezbollah's right to exist?
They are not simply Iranian puppets. Rather, they were elected to represent constituencies with legitimate grievances.
As Yitzak Rabin (may peace eve upon him) said, if you want peace, you negotiate it with your enemies.
They are not simply Iranian puppets. Rather, they were elected to represent constituencies with legitimate grievances.
As Yitzak Rabin (may peace eve upon him) said, if you want peace, you negotiate it with your enemies.
6
See, that’s the problem with our State Department and the logic of our diplomats.
Nicholas Burns used to be one of them.
They don’t know how to solve the problems. They are trained to maintain the conflict endlessly and turn it into the chronic condition.
That’s why we have to spend on our military as much as the rest of the world combined.
That’s why after so many decades we still fight the Russians, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Arabs, the Afghans...
It seems that our State Department uses the simple computer logic. It’s either 1 or 0. It’s either the total victory or the endless wars.
Who cares that nobody in the world is perfectly good or perfectly bad. We the humans are just a mix of many shades of gray with all our faults, strengths, hubris, narcissism and vanity.
Nicholas Burns used to be one of them.
They don’t know how to solve the problems. They are trained to maintain the conflict endlessly and turn it into the chronic condition.
That’s why we have to spend on our military as much as the rest of the world combined.
That’s why after so many decades we still fight the Russians, the North Koreans, the Iranians, the Arabs, the Afghans...
It seems that our State Department uses the simple computer logic. It’s either 1 or 0. It’s either the total victory or the endless wars.
Who cares that nobody in the world is perfectly good or perfectly bad. We the humans are just a mix of many shades of gray with all our faults, strengths, hubris, narcissism and vanity.
3
Once again, as with the invasion of Iraq, the United States is way too out in front in assuming the role of world policeman. It's shocking but not surprising that the voices of our European allies, plus those of Russia and China (all signatories to the deal) have been so muted during the American debate. Where is their assessment of the risks? Their sense of urgency? I realize that we led the talks that preceded all this, but why does it always come down to America vs. a dangerous country like Iran and not the world powers vs. the rogue state? And in this case, shouldn't our European allies, whose colonial misrule and post-imperial exits, made such a mess in that region, take greater responsibility for cleaning it up? And after all, any nuclear threat that Iran might pose one day is far more dangerous to them, than it is for us.
80
Excellent questions.
It is that way because our leaders would not have it any other way.
Charles - you answered your own question. America is the world policeman because only America has the military capability and global interest to support world order. Those other countries don't have an assessment, they are not global leaders. Europe ignored the Syrian war, and now it's being flooded with immigrants, waking up to a problem - Europe doesn't realize that failure to maintain regional securities comes back to bite them hard at home. Only America realizes this. European defense budgets are but a tiny fraction of USA, even though European population is larger. China and Russia are looking for business from Iran, as are France and Germany. Their focus is not regional security.
Sadly, Mr. Burns' wisdom is wasted on the President. He is determined to withdraw from the Middle East so that he can cut military spending back to pre 9/11 levels. Everything he does in foreign policy is subservient to the domestic goal of creating a European style social democracy in the U. S.
1
Like virtually every issue regarding Israel, the deal with Iran is blown all out of proportion -- there is no valid comparison with the vote on Iraq which resulted in the absolutely unnecessary deaths of more than 100 thousand civilians and thousands of American soldiers. Israel -- in spite of all its wild propaganda about Iran being "an existential threat " to its existence -- remains, by orders of magnitude, the most powerful and feared nation in the entire Middle East and Israel's awesome nuclear capability increases that advantage exponentially. Moreover, Israel's close ally, the United States, is, by orders of magnitude, the most powerful nation in the world. This severely limits Iran's options, because Iran really does face an existential threat from two nations who -- unlike Iran -- actually do have have the power to terminate Iran's existence right now. The deal is good for the U.S., good for Israel and good for the world as any objective analysis shows. Importantly, it is also consistent with President Kennedy's wise belief that we Americans should "exercise [our power] with wisdom and restraint and seek to achieve ... that ancient vision of peace on earth good will towards [all] ...."
48
I like these suggestions with the exception of the second.
We shouldn't paint ourselves into a corner, particularly one in which we guarantee the use of military force, just to reassure the Congressional knuckleheads.
It puts unnecessary pressure on our future leadership and creates too many gray areas while needlessly removing potentially better, but currently unforeseeable options without taking into account the will of the public, which does not much enjoy fighting wars in the Middle East (and our government supposedly represents).
That's far too large of a price to pay just to reassure a group of people (the Republicans) who tend to do anything they can to undermine Obama in the first place -- their response to this issue included.
The military option is clearly still on the table should Iran renege. Obama knows that, Congress knows that, and Iran knows that. Leave it at that.
We shouldn't paint ourselves into a corner, particularly one in which we guarantee the use of military force, just to reassure the Congressional knuckleheads.
It puts unnecessary pressure on our future leadership and creates too many gray areas while needlessly removing potentially better, but currently unforeseeable options without taking into account the will of the public, which does not much enjoy fighting wars in the Middle East (and our government supposedly represents).
That's far too large of a price to pay just to reassure a group of people (the Republicans) who tend to do anything they can to undermine Obama in the first place -- their response to this issue included.
The military option is clearly still on the table should Iran renege. Obama knows that, Congress knows that, and Iran knows that. Leave it at that.
5
It is the youth of Iran that I believe the President had in mind when he laid out the 10-15 year plan. With an agreement that keeps the peace, he is certainly hopeful that the young Iranians, who have nothing against America and don't believe what the old guard is telling them, will emerge in leadership roles. It is in the realm of possibility that Iran will be rocked by a violent revolution within that time frame and that leaders like Ali Khamenei will be disposed.
9
If Iran is "rocked by a violent revolution," what makes you think the outcome will br any different than it was for Libya, Syria, Egypt or Yemen? Violence, cruelty, refugees, jihadist?
Some of Burn,s proposals are reasonable and have already been proposed by the President .
However he makes the mistake of believing this deal is all about Israel and that Iran is our implacable enemy. For that reason there is no reason why the President should visit Israel.
I would favor our foreign policy focus on continued contact and negotiation with Iran and our p5 partners to focus on the following
Finding a solution to the tragic civil war in Syria , Russia and Iran are crucial in this process. One only has to see the desperation at the Train Station in Budapest to see how urgent this is.
The second and it is related to the first, defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria . We have to avoid a vacuum of power in both these countries which allows ISIS to take over.
The Sunni nations will not help as their younger populations sympathies with ISIS.
Israel cannot help so the only real possibility is to work with Iran to solve these problems and in the process achieve a balance of power between the Shia and Sunni,s in the region
However he makes the mistake of believing this deal is all about Israel and that Iran is our implacable enemy. For that reason there is no reason why the President should visit Israel.
I would favor our foreign policy focus on continued contact and negotiation with Iran and our p5 partners to focus on the following
Finding a solution to the tragic civil war in Syria , Russia and Iran are crucial in this process. One only has to see the desperation at the Train Station in Budapest to see how urgent this is.
The second and it is related to the first, defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria . We have to avoid a vacuum of power in both these countries which allows ISIS to take over.
The Sunni nations will not help as their younger populations sympathies with ISIS.
Israel cannot help so the only real possibility is to work with Iran to solve these problems and in the process achieve a balance of power between the Shia and Sunni,s in the region
3
Another GWB appointee calling on Obama to seek a bipartisan solution, with Republicans in Congress who made a pact on the evening of Obama's inauguration that they would eschew bipartisanship on all issues, despite admitting that such an approach has no chance to win Republican votes in Congress. How helpful!
16
"First, Mr. Obama could reaffirm President Jimmy Carter’s doctrine from the 1970s that the United States will defend its vital interests in the security of the Persian Gulf region against any aggressor."
What definition of "aggressor" applies to Iran? It fought an inter-state war with Iraq after being invaded by Saddam Hussein's forces. Has it fought any other wars since the Revolution that I am unaware of? Yes, Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, but does that constitute "aggression" under international law? What about our joining with the Israelis to undermine Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet virus? Was that "aggression?"
And how can the United States complain about Iranian "aggression" after illegally invading Iraq in 2003? Is it acceptable for the US to engage in aggression because we are somehow the "good guys?" I don't recall seeing that concept in international law either.
What definition of "aggressor" applies to Iran? It fought an inter-state war with Iraq after being invaded by Saddam Hussein's forces. Has it fought any other wars since the Revolution that I am unaware of? Yes, Iran supports groups like Hezbollah, but does that constitute "aggression" under international law? What about our joining with the Israelis to undermine Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet virus? Was that "aggression?"
And how can the United States complain about Iranian "aggression" after illegally invading Iraq in 2003? Is it acceptable for the US to engage in aggression because we are somehow the "good guys?" I don't recall seeing that concept in international law either.
17
'Aggression' is in the eye of the beholder it seems.
So, to prevent war we should send more arms to the region.
3
How strange it is. Under the leadership of President George W. Bush, there were no limitations to Iran's nuclear development. Nobody seemed to mind that during that time, Iran was able to development a nuclear establishment that put them within a year or so of developing a nuclear weapon according to Netanyahu. Now, President Obama with the P5 have push that possible development back 10 to 15 years, everybody is crying foul. Or is the cry fowl?
In reality, no matter what type of agreement the P5+1 came to with Iran, the Republicans and Israel would oppose it. Neither would be willing to accept nothing less than Iran's complete capitulation. Something like what took place at the end of WWII with West Germany and Tokyo. No, won't happen. The Republicans and Israel need to come into the real world. the dream world in which they live is just that a pipe dream.
In reality, no matter what type of agreement the P5+1 came to with Iran, the Republicans and Israel would oppose it. Neither would be willing to accept nothing less than Iran's complete capitulation. Something like what took place at the end of WWII with West Germany and Tokyo. No, won't happen. The Republicans and Israel need to come into the real world. the dream world in which they live is just that a pipe dream.
27
It is not just Mr. Netanyahu that President Obama needs to close his "glaring gap" with. It is the people of Israel, who overwhelmingly oppose the deal, and how could anyone in their right mind blame them?
6
Oh, I see, the 'people' of Israel oppose a deal that is good for the US and the rest of the world, therefore the US should not enter into that deal...what country do you live in A. Stanton???
I live in the U.S. Dara, a country whose people support Israel and are opposed to the deal by very large majorities.
What country do you live in?
What country do you live in?
1
Obama doesn't have to do anything at all vis a vis Israel. Netanyahu and Israelis have forever tarnished their image in the eyes of Americans who pay for their sovereignty.
Sounds right that the GOP just said no but had no plan of their own to talk about. I do not know what the future will bring however it is better to talk to your enemy than shoot at them.
8
If the Iranians can be trusted, they will never use a nuclear weapon and so no nuclear agreement is necessary. If they cannot be trusted, and they will use a nuclear weapon, no agreement can stop them. Either way, the Iranians will do what they are inclined to do with any weapon they develop and so the present agreement has no practical importance. I would have preferred a better deal for lifting sanctions, like a promise to stop exporting conventional weapons, which have had a real and substantial adverse effect on Mideast peace efforts.
19
If Ronald Reagan, and every American president before and since, had applied your logic to the Soviet Union, we would never have negotiated any arms agreements with them.
1
What is the evidence that Iran will approach this issue in such an up-or-down, either-or matter? This seems unnecessarily simplistic. The real power is in holding out implicitly or explicitly the chance to rejoin the world of nations/the modern world/ the community of global players. Iran is according to those who know it better than I do an ancient proud and dynamic nation that has been cornered by its own folly and a defensive reaction to the intrusive and arrogant actions of the west (especially the US -- thinking of the coup and subsequent support of the Pahlavi "dynasty"). The Obama deal lets it out of that corner back in a world where interaction will make it less of a rogue.
1
The P5+ 1 deal is not about trust. This is about verification among rational acting nation state leaders.
1
"An Obama pivot back to American leadership in the Middle East is not only good politics in a divided Washington, but also the right diplomatic response to reaffirm..."
One can only lead if there are those who will follow, sadly there are very few in the Middle East who will follow America's lead.
One can only lead if there are those who will follow, sadly there are very few in the Middle East who will follow America's lead.
Iran has plenty of nuclear energy, and it wants nuclear weapons to solidify and to reinforce its sectarian power to defy the Western power, not just a nuclear threat to the region, but to the world. Iran's nuclear power is not only a threat to Saudi Arabia and Israel, but to European and American interest throughout the world.It is almost impossible to verify its nuclear weapons development at the present time or in the future.
The lifting the solutions helps European business to operate in Iran at the cost of American benevolence. It is easy for Iran to develop nuclear weapons clandestinely after it gets its waiver, very difficult for the inspectors to verify.
The world should not take the risk of being annihilated by a belligerent nation.
The lifting the solutions helps European business to operate in Iran at the cost of American benevolence. It is easy for Iran to develop nuclear weapons clandestinely after it gets its waiver, very difficult for the inspectors to verify.
The world should not take the risk of being annihilated by a belligerent nation.
3
The Republicans are clearly ginning up for a another ruinous Middle Eastern war. I don't see how we can possibly stop them. Get ready for ISIS taking over Iran in the bloody aftermath.
1
Or, Obama could chalk up the opposition to cynical partisanship like it is, put a feather rightly in his cap, and focus his attention on the next task.
He's done his job, made a good deal and plenty of chest thumping assurances.
This article STILL doesn't articulate why scuttling this deal is a superior option in the eyes of its opponents.
I remember back in 2012 when Netanyahu dragged out that bomb diagram at the UN, claiming we were in the 11th hour. 3 years ago! So I'm not impressed about fears of Iran potentially going nuclear in 2026, 3 Presidential election cycles from now.
He's done his job, made a good deal and plenty of chest thumping assurances.
This article STILL doesn't articulate why scuttling this deal is a superior option in the eyes of its opponents.
I remember back in 2012 when Netanyahu dragged out that bomb diagram at the UN, claiming we were in the 11th hour. 3 years ago! So I'm not impressed about fears of Iran potentially going nuclear in 2026, 3 Presidential election cycles from now.
10
Empty threats and fading red lines drawn in the sand (Burns' suggestion we threaten the use of military force should the Iranians move forward with the development of a nuclear arsenal) are counter-productive to long range stability in the middle east. The military defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with the emergence if ISIS/ISIL make such threats mere bombast, especially from a president with less than a year left in office.
Iran, at some point, will have nuclear weapons. Like other unstable actors with these weapons (North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel) Iran will find itself in the same dilemma. To use the weapons will assure a certain and swift retaliation in kind and likely end of that nation. Some may choose to scoff at the "outdated" doctrine of mutually assured destruction, but it has been effect since the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 70 years.
Engagement with Iran is necessary, bluster does nothing to help achieve that objective.
Iran, at some point, will have nuclear weapons. Like other unstable actors with these weapons (North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel) Iran will find itself in the same dilemma. To use the weapons will assure a certain and swift retaliation in kind and likely end of that nation. Some may choose to scoff at the "outdated" doctrine of mutually assured destruction, but it has been effect since the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - 70 years.
Engagement with Iran is necessary, bluster does nothing to help achieve that objective.
169
The only problem with this assertion is what happens when terrorists get a nuke. Even if we were willing to exterminate a city because a madman like the one who runs NK does something stupid, and that would be killing innocents, what happens when through a third party, or a forth, a nuke goes off in Paris, or New York?
States realize they can't beat us, so entities like Osama and ISIS arise.
We need to get rid of our nukes. They simply drain our treasury. They are obsolete and we will never use them. When we do that we can demand other do the same.
States realize they can't beat us, so entities like Osama and ISIS arise.
We need to get rid of our nukes. They simply drain our treasury. They are obsolete and we will never use them. When we do that we can demand other do the same.
Nuclear non-proliferation is a critical element of US foreign policy, has been for decades, and will be regardless of who occupies the White House. I think it wildly overstates things to say that Iran "at some point, will have nuclear weapons." I do agree with the author of this article that a statement from Obama would help, framed as a bi-partisan doctrine on the Middle East, that the US will use military force if Iran abandons this agreement and pursues a nuclear bomb.
Beyond that, you you are a little loose with other facts in your comment. First, Obama isn't "a president with less than a year left in office." He has nearly 17 months left in office -- almost a year and-a-half. Not the most critical point to illuminate, but let's just be accurate and avoid these too-early dismissals of Mr. Obama's influence because he's a lame duck on his way out the door.
I'm not sure what the international nuclear non-proliferation agreement says, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't blithely concede that other nations are sure to acquire a nuclear bomb eventually. Moreover, I think Obama defended the recent agreement reached with Iran by saying we absolutely cannot permit Iran to acquire a bomb and an agreement like this is one of only two choices that we have in order to prevent them from doing so. The other choice, of course, is military action.
Nuclear non-proliferation is US policy, not an empty threat and 'fading red line drawn in the sand.'
Beyond that, you you are a little loose with other facts in your comment. First, Obama isn't "a president with less than a year left in office." He has nearly 17 months left in office -- almost a year and-a-half. Not the most critical point to illuminate, but let's just be accurate and avoid these too-early dismissals of Mr. Obama's influence because he's a lame duck on his way out the door.
I'm not sure what the international nuclear non-proliferation agreement says, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't blithely concede that other nations are sure to acquire a nuclear bomb eventually. Moreover, I think Obama defended the recent agreement reached with Iran by saying we absolutely cannot permit Iran to acquire a bomb and an agreement like this is one of only two choices that we have in order to prevent them from doing so. The other choice, of course, is military action.
Nuclear non-proliferation is US policy, not an empty threat and 'fading red line drawn in the sand.'
1
"Less than a year?" If you don know the date of the installation of the next president, I doubt you know anything about this issue.
1
Iran, under its Ayatollahs, has been and continues to be a hard-core anti-Jewish, anti-Israel state and promulgator of war and terror throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. It's repeatedly stated and never-revoked aim has been and continues to be death to America and the annihilation of Israel.
President Obama is now on the verge of concluding a deal with it that will provide its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas with sufficient weaponry to wage devastating wars and terror attacks on Israel; and provide our new friend the Ayatollah with the capability to launch nuclear-tipped missiles in the direction of Tel-Aviv, Beersheba and Haifa on any day of his choosing within the next decade, if not much sooner.
The Administration justifies the deal by claiming that opponents to it have failed to present reasonable alternatives to it. This is utterly false. The sanctions were working extremely well, and undoubtedly would have worked better, had not the President entered these negotiations in the first place; and then made concession-after-concession during them which have had the effect of convincing the world that the U.S. was giving up on the utility of the sanctions; thus hastening the day when other nations would strike their own deals with Iran, which is already happening.
The deal stinks, and that we are now already discussing ways of dealing with the awful consequences of it even before it is approved by Congress is a scandal.
President Obama is now on the verge of concluding a deal with it that will provide its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas with sufficient weaponry to wage devastating wars and terror attacks on Israel; and provide our new friend the Ayatollah with the capability to launch nuclear-tipped missiles in the direction of Tel-Aviv, Beersheba and Haifa on any day of his choosing within the next decade, if not much sooner.
The Administration justifies the deal by claiming that opponents to it have failed to present reasonable alternatives to it. This is utterly false. The sanctions were working extremely well, and undoubtedly would have worked better, had not the President entered these negotiations in the first place; and then made concession-after-concession during them which have had the effect of convincing the world that the U.S. was giving up on the utility of the sanctions; thus hastening the day when other nations would strike their own deals with Iran, which is already happening.
The deal stinks, and that we are now already discussing ways of dealing with the awful consequences of it even before it is approved by Congress is a scandal.
7
There is something of a stick in the mud mindset of some folks assuming that everything will stay as nasty as it is now. Enemies do become friends not in dreams but often in reality. Yes, it is possible for the younger generation if not for crusty old fogies of the cold war to mutually agree to give up nuclear weapons. 2025 could be very different from 2015 in terms of civilized approaches to global problems because people get to understand that once the military-industrial complex is put in its place, there would be all round prosperity and much less hatred between peoples.
Second, Iran may be buttressing violent regimes such as Hamas in the South and Hezbollah in the North of Israel. Israel with US help is more than capable of meeting that kind of adversarial situation, and over the years both the regimes may come to appreciate the rationale of non-belligerent ways. Israel could also be expected to reciprocate with a much less of a hard line dealing with Palestine issues.
Third, Sunnis are more fundamentalist than the Shias. Anytime prefer a Shia to a Sunni enemy.
Second, Iran may be buttressing violent regimes such as Hamas in the South and Hezbollah in the North of Israel. Israel with US help is more than capable of meeting that kind of adversarial situation, and over the years both the regimes may come to appreciate the rationale of non-belligerent ways. Israel could also be expected to reciprocate with a much less of a hard line dealing with Palestine issues.
Third, Sunnis are more fundamentalist than the Shias. Anytime prefer a Shia to a Sunni enemy.
When the people don’t understand the problems they tend to panic and make extremely bad moves.
What do I think about the GOP Middle Eastern policies? An elephant and a china shop don’t mix well. The only way to prevent the total chaos is to take the GOP elephant away from the negotiating table.
However, the Obama team is not more skilled either. They have helped create the current chaos in the Middle East by failing to correct the catastrophic failures from Bush/Cheney era.
After the start of the Arab Spring several years ago, the Obama Administration facilitated the creation of the ISIS and ignition of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war in the Middle East. What started as positive social and democratic rebellion morphed into the ethnic and religious wars after the White House let the Saudi tanks invade Bahrain and crash the Shiite majority demanding their democratic rights. Immediately afterwards the Assad regime started killing the Sunni majority in Syria in equally brutal way.
If the White House stopped Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait it had to stop the Saudi King from invading Bahrain. We didn’t act justly and it backfired.
Our foreign policy cannot be to stall the Iranian progress forever.
We must help the Israelis, the Sunnis and the Shiites to learn how to live as a good neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance.
No Iran nuclear deal will achieve this objective.
I offered a help because there is a shortcut to the regional peace but nobody needs it...
What do I think about the GOP Middle Eastern policies? An elephant and a china shop don’t mix well. The only way to prevent the total chaos is to take the GOP elephant away from the negotiating table.
However, the Obama team is not more skilled either. They have helped create the current chaos in the Middle East by failing to correct the catastrophic failures from Bush/Cheney era.
After the start of the Arab Spring several years ago, the Obama Administration facilitated the creation of the ISIS and ignition of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian war in the Middle East. What started as positive social and democratic rebellion morphed into the ethnic and religious wars after the White House let the Saudi tanks invade Bahrain and crash the Shiite majority demanding their democratic rights. Immediately afterwards the Assad regime started killing the Sunni majority in Syria in equally brutal way.
If the White House stopped Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait it had to stop the Saudi King from invading Bahrain. We didn’t act justly and it backfired.
Our foreign policy cannot be to stall the Iranian progress forever.
We must help the Israelis, the Sunnis and the Shiites to learn how to live as a good neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance.
No Iran nuclear deal will achieve this objective.
I offered a help because there is a shortcut to the regional peace but nobody needs it...
"He should close the glaring public gap between him and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."
Really? It's up to Obama to close the gap that Netanyahu opened? The same Netanyahu who plotted to speak to Congress to urge them to oppose the leader of a country that gives his country billions every year? Netanyahu, who during the elections tried to turn Israeli Jews against Israeli Arabs? Netanyahu, who promised that there would be no two-state solution? Netanyahu, who sabotaged Kerry's attempt to make peace?
I don't think so.
As for Mr Burns, it's quite sad that all he can see is continued hostility towards Iran.
Really? It's up to Obama to close the gap that Netanyahu opened? The same Netanyahu who plotted to speak to Congress to urge them to oppose the leader of a country that gives his country billions every year? Netanyahu, who during the elections tried to turn Israeli Jews against Israeli Arabs? Netanyahu, who promised that there would be no two-state solution? Netanyahu, who sabotaged Kerry's attempt to make peace?
I don't think so.
As for Mr Burns, it's quite sad that all he can see is continued hostility towards Iran.
56
After more than two decades of Saudi encouragement for the most extreme interpretations of Sunni Islam -- interpretations which inevitably give rise to groups like Al Qaeda and Isis, I think that Mr. Burns is advocating an outdated policy by focusing on the isolation of Iran in the Middle East and our alliance with the Saudis. It seems much smarter to work towards a "balance of power" politics, encouraging Iran when appropriate, and generally working towards peaceful solutions, rather than conflict, and moderation rather than fundamentalism. Both goals will take time, but the 10-15 year time frame of the deal is an eternity in the contemporary international landscape. Think of the changes in Europe and the world in the 1980s, or in the Middle East in decades since, or in the landscape for energy and oil and gas production (so crucial to Middle East politics) in recent years. Sadly, Mr. Burns underestimates the degree to which Republican opposition to this agreement is dictated by domestic policy considerations and a scorched earth policy towards President Obama. With those things in mind, public saber rattling towards Iran seems pointless and ill-advised, and we need a more comprehensive policy towards the Middle East that, realistically, sees a role for every country, focuses on peaceful solutions, strengthens genuinely friendly governments, and acts to isolate and combat extremism wherever it appears (and that includes "friends" like Israel and Saudi Arabia).
8
2 words: Pul-lease! An undersecretary of State under W Bush is going to lecture Obama and the Democrats about strategic leadership in the Middle East?! just wow.
33
The majority of Americans in the latest polling ( Quinnipiac, CNN, Monmouth University, CBS, NBC+) do not trust Iran to abide by this deal and oppose the deal.
Those who vote for it will be held to their voting positions by constituents in the next elections.
Many Americans, including myself, believe this is a major disaster which, according to Obama, will be his foreign policy legacy.
However, he will ram it through Congress. He has already let it be known that he will not tolerate any dissent on this, calling those who question his opinion, those who want war.
The treaty is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.
But Obama and his friends in Europe and Russia will have their way.
There will be a nuclear armed Iran.
That will not lead to peace.
Those who believe Iran will cooperate ( it has a 100% history of not keeping such treaties) will find that history will support those who opposed the treaty.
We will find a Middle East even more destabilized while knifing our Sunni Arab friends ( Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc.) and Israel in the backs.
Actions have consequences.
Those who vote for it will be held to their voting positions by constituents in the next elections.
Many Americans, including myself, believe this is a major disaster which, according to Obama, will be his foreign policy legacy.
However, he will ram it through Congress. He has already let it be known that he will not tolerate any dissent on this, calling those who question his opinion, those who want war.
The treaty is wrong on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.
But Obama and his friends in Europe and Russia will have their way.
There will be a nuclear armed Iran.
That will not lead to peace.
Those who believe Iran will cooperate ( it has a 100% history of not keeping such treaties) will find that history will support those who opposed the treaty.
We will find a Middle East even more destabilized while knifing our Sunni Arab friends ( Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc.) and Israel in the backs.
Actions have consequences.
10
Obama "has already let it be known that he will not tolerate any dissent on this...."
I guess that's why we haven't heard any dissent, huh?
I guess that's why we haven't heard any dissent, huh?
Exactly.
Let's see how the politicians up for re-election in 2016 fare after they give Obama yet another rubber stamp, this time on a deal with Iran that GIVES them a path to nuclear weapons.
Let's see how the politicians up for re-election in 2016 fare after they give Obama yet another rubber stamp, this time on a deal with Iran that GIVES them a path to nuclear weapons.
"Those who believe Iran will cooperate (it has 100% history of not keeping such treaties)...."
Name one. All the supposed nonsense about Iran violating NTP is lies spread by Israel.
Name one. All the supposed nonsense about Iran violating NTP is lies spread by Israel.
President Obama will not do any of the recommendations included in Mr. Burns' insightful article because that would require work, something he has chosen over and over to ovoid. President "Path of Least Resistance" will simply sit back on his small "victory" and ride out his term. Like Obamacare, and his other "achievements," the President will let others bang out mediocrity while he claims the laurels. His Presidency has been a model of laizze-faire governance.
3
Many commenters here suggest the tired old line "Set the Palestinians free" and the Middle East will be peaceful. Including Israel, presumably. Kinda didn't work out that way in 1948, 1967, 1973. Israel has nuclear weapons but having them prevents their enemies from realizing their stated mission of sending the Jews to the sea. That said, this debate is about Iran and not the Palestinians (who should have their own state). The better old line is "If the Palestinians laid down their weapons, we'd have Israel-Palestinian peace. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, there'd be no more Israel." As Obama said, words have consequences...why not apply that same thinking to "Death to America?"
7
Actually, its Israel that wiped Palestine off the map by driving the refugees into the desert.
And BTW, the Palestinians on the West Bank "laid down their weapons" a decade ago when the intifada ended. How's that worked out for them?
And BTW, the Palestinians on the West Bank "laid down their weapons" a decade ago when the intifada ended. How's that worked out for them?
More than likely, Mr. Netanyahu will not win this round, but he has handled himself well, and comes away looking like a winner for the future. Unlike President Obama, he has not displayed personal pique against his opponents, questioned their motives or ever failed to express gratitude for the support Israel is receiving from the U.S.
Moreover, until President Obama took increased sanctions off the table more-or-less single-handedly, Mr. Netanyahu always supported them as a reasonable alternative to precipitously moving ahead with the deal.
His one and only focus throughout the life of this controversy has been the safety and security of his country. Israel is fortunate to have him for the difficult and uncertain days ahead.
Moreover, until President Obama took increased sanctions off the table more-or-less single-handedly, Mr. Netanyahu always supported them as a reasonable alternative to precipitously moving ahead with the deal.
His one and only focus throughout the life of this controversy has been the safety and security of his country. Israel is fortunate to have him for the difficult and uncertain days ahead.
8
Netanyahu has been handling himself well?
He didn't even participate in the nuclear disarmament negotiations! After petitioning the UN and and Congress for action on this specific topic!
Netanyahu is a neoconservative ideologue who has permanently soiled his credibility with the global power structure. His international base of support is the US right wing.
He's been crying wolf for so long, he doesn't have any other dance moves.
He didn't even participate in the nuclear disarmament negotiations! After petitioning the UN and and Congress for action on this specific topic!
Netanyahu is a neoconservative ideologue who has permanently soiled his credibility with the global power structure. His international base of support is the US right wing.
He's been crying wolf for so long, he doesn't have any other dance moves.
"... but he has handled himself well..."
Sure. If behaving like a raging lunatic can be classified as "handled himself well".
Sure. If behaving like a raging lunatic can be classified as "handled himself well".
Well, of course, some Americans have problems with Mr. Netanyahu and Israel, but most of us don't.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-f...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-f...
3
"Republicans have been right to highlight the deal’s principal weakness — it could permit Iran to emerge stronger 10 to 15 years from now as restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse."
The Times has it right on that point. But the fail to see that it is mostly guaranteed that our weak position in the agreement is not going to affect Iran's plans at all. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts. By doing so little now to stop Iran now, we will have to do the very things needed in the future at greater risk.
The Times has it right on that point. But the fail to see that it is mostly guaranteed that our weak position in the agreement is not going to affect Iran's plans at all. To think otherwise is to ignore the facts. By doing so little now to stop Iran now, we will have to do the very things needed in the future at greater risk.
1
The administration should commit a policy of coercive diplomacy — major steps to keep Iran on the defensive and push back against its growing power in the Middle East.
It's wise of the professor to insist on the importance of keeping Iran in check, but would be even wiser of him to insist successive administrations do this without ever again resorting to kind of highly offensive and intrusive power play gambits as were malevolently dreamed up and then executed by the CIA in the not too distant past.
It's wise of the professor to insist on the importance of keeping Iran in check, but would be even wiser of him to insist successive administrations do this without ever again resorting to kind of highly offensive and intrusive power play gambits as were malevolently dreamed up and then executed by the CIA in the not too distant past.
Why is it assumed that the US and its allies will stand by in 10-15 years while Iran rushes to build a nuclear bomb? The US may still be committed to preventing that and at least some of the P5 will cooperate. Iran could well evolve into a much different country, one that is not willing to suffer the economic and political consequences of building a bomb. If a Cheney or Trump, both crazies, were President the Iranians might well believe that we might "out-crazy" them. Alternatively, a more sensible President might use diplomacy as successfully as Obama did to delay an Iranian bomb again. The assumption that the world will remain in suspended animation for 10 years is wrong.
8
Virtually everything stated in this op-ed is nonsense and demonstrates the utter lack of common sense among US foreign policy elites, their inability to think along the lines of objectivity, and their gross stupidity.
Let's state clearly what the significant problem is in the Middle East. It is not the threat that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. There is little threat of that happening. It is the fact that Israel already has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and that the US is unwilling to pressure Israel with sanctions or other means to eliminate these weapons.
Why do we keep coddling a war prone tiny state that refuses to negotiate an acceptable solution to the biggest problem in the Middle East: the status of a Palestinian homeland and Israel's continued persecution of the Palestinian population.
When one compares the behavior of Israel and Iran there is little question which state is the horrible aggressor in the area. Iran has not fought any nation in the area since Saddam Hussein launched a war against it. Meanwhile Israel continues to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the area.
Let the US and the world act objectively for once and declare that any nation in the Middle East that does not abide by a total ban on nuclear weapons will be subject to strong international economic sanctions. The Middle East should be a nuclear weapons free zone. Actually the whole world should be such a zone.
Let's state clearly what the significant problem is in the Middle East. It is not the threat that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. There is little threat of that happening. It is the fact that Israel already has a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and that the US is unwilling to pressure Israel with sanctions or other means to eliminate these weapons.
Why do we keep coddling a war prone tiny state that refuses to negotiate an acceptable solution to the biggest problem in the Middle East: the status of a Palestinian homeland and Israel's continued persecution of the Palestinian population.
When one compares the behavior of Israel and Iran there is little question which state is the horrible aggressor in the area. Iran has not fought any nation in the area since Saddam Hussein launched a war against it. Meanwhile Israel continues to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in the area.
Let the US and the world act objectively for once and declare that any nation in the Middle East that does not abide by a total ban on nuclear weapons will be subject to strong international economic sanctions. The Middle East should be a nuclear weapons free zone. Actually the whole world should be such a zone.
18
Had Mr. Obama initiated any or all of Mr. Burns' recommendations during his first six years in office the U.S. would be in a much better bargaining position now and we would have been able to negotiate from a position of strength not weakness.
5
"Leading from behind"? Obama proposed this agreement.
I see no reason for President Obama to go to Israel to stand by Mr Netanyahu. Enough of supporting a regime that doesn't want to let the Palestinians have a place to live.
184
Better he should go address the Knesset at the invitation of the Labor Party and use the address to criticize Benji. One good turn deserves another...
8
So Israel doesn't want the Palestinians to have a place to live? The same Israel that withdrew from Gaza 10 years ago, pulling out thousands of settlers so Palestinians could have their own territory? The Palestinian response was to tear down all of the Israeli buildings, vote in a terrorist organization to lead Gaza and then use the area as a launching pad for missile attacks against Israeli civilians. Let's remember who the real villains are.
1
Enough of supporting a regime that disrespects our president. Why should Obama travel to Israel to grovel before and be a political prop for Netanyahu, and in the process risk sharing Prime Minister Rabin's fate at the hands of Israel's radical right. Better personal relations requires a sincere apology from Prime Minister Netanyahu for his shameless meddling in American politics and the disrespect he has shown toward Obama. He is the one who should be groveling. Obama cannot stand beside Netanyahu in solidarity against a nuclear Iran, because a nuclear Iran does not exist.
9
Mr. Burns is an experienced diplomat who knows the region well and his advice cannot be taken lightly. However, it is quite clear that the region is going through a phase where old calculations don't seem to work. ISIS and the downfall of the despotic rulers have created a situation in which conventional rules don't apply. The question is whether US diplomats are creative enough to steer the region not towards immediate peace but towards a state where they can wait out the extremism, whose fire will eventually burn out.
57
If he is an experince diplomat, better advise Netaniahu , to came and excuse himself to Obama, not the way aroud
1
That state of affairs where the world can wait out extremism is more a palace of dreams. ISIS will not be waited out.
"whose fire will eventually burn out". What is fueling that "fire"? How long is "eventually"? How many millions, or even billions of all species will be destroyed while "waiting out"?
I am confused about the sunset clause. Some parties, including Burns and yesterday on PBS, appear to suggest that Iran will have a free hand once the JCPOA winds down. What I don't understand is what additional rights will Iran have that they didn't have when they began their negotiations?
Iran was already close to a nuclear threshold state. It could have gone beyond the 20% enrichment or increased the number of centrifuges, so in my mind they could at best be where they were and nothing more. On the other hand:
- The JCPOA signs them up for the additional protocol that does not expire.
- We would have a better understanding of their infrastructure in the 10 years that we inspect them than without.
So is this opposition to the sunset clause just a ruse?
As far as helping the Saudis or Israel, I don't see what good that would do to us. We would be locking ourselves in with regimes that don't always agree with us.
Iran was already close to a nuclear threshold state. It could have gone beyond the 20% enrichment or increased the number of centrifuges, so in my mind they could at best be where they were and nothing more. On the other hand:
- The JCPOA signs them up for the additional protocol that does not expire.
- We would have a better understanding of their infrastructure in the 10 years that we inspect them than without.
So is this opposition to the sunset clause just a ruse?
As far as helping the Saudis or Israel, I don't see what good that would do to us. We would be locking ourselves in with regimes that don't always agree with us.
31
Rademaker, who was on PBS Newshour last night is a lobbyist with a long history of being wrong. You can read about him here:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/02/war-iraq-helped-finance-pe...
I was shocked to see Newshour feature him.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/02/war-iraq-helped-finance-pe...
I was shocked to see Newshour feature him.
1
Ah, if only Mossadege were still around. But in 1953, the US got rid of him and gave Iran and the world Reza Shah Pahlevi instead. Resistance to the Shah and the hated Savak required great determination.
Needless to say, overthrowing the clerics will not be as simple as throwing out Mossadegh. I don't believe Khamenei holds cabinet meetings in his pyjamas.
Needless to say, overthrowing the clerics will not be as simple as throwing out Mossadegh. I don't believe Khamenei holds cabinet meetings in his pyjamas.
11
The US should get out and stay out of the Middle east.
62 years, trillions of dollars, millions of dead Afghans, Iraqi's and Iranians and our misguided, stupid, ignorant action just keep radicalising those folks.
Let the next US war in the Middle East be fought by the children and grandchildren of the warmongers, the rent boys of AIPAC, Shelly Adelson and the MIC.
62 years, trillions of dollars, millions of dead Afghans, Iraqi's and Iranians and our misguided, stupid, ignorant action just keep radicalising those folks.
Let the next US war in the Middle East be fought by the children and grandchildren of the warmongers, the rent boys of AIPAC, Shelly Adelson and the MIC.
98
The anger expressed by some readers that President Obama is not exercising leadership in the Middle East, Europe, Asia (and presumably the rest of the world) arises in part from a distorted memory of the Cold War. The U.S. never possessed the ability to bend the USSR or China to our will. Our most ambitious attempt to do so, through the war in Vietnam, ended in disaster for us. Diplomacy, especially Nixon's opening to China, proved far more effective than force in achieving some of our goals. Our nuclear arsenal served to keep our adversaries in check, but theirs had the same effect on us.
The advantage that ultimately spelled the downfall of the Soviets was the superiority of our economic system over theirs. The willingness of the Chinese leadership to draw the correct conclusion from the events of 1989 led them to liberalize their economy, converting that country into a frenemy that poses a much smaller threat than the Soviets did.
President Obama's goals in the Middle East aim at giving Iran the time and the incentive to duplicate China's evolution. This approach may fail, but it offers far greater prospects of success than a policy based on war. The style of leadership required lacks the drama and the strutting associated with the martial approach, but it is much less likely to risk the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and Iranians. On the whole, it is a more mature way of handling foreign relations.
The advantage that ultimately spelled the downfall of the Soviets was the superiority of our economic system over theirs. The willingness of the Chinese leadership to draw the correct conclusion from the events of 1989 led them to liberalize their economy, converting that country into a frenemy that poses a much smaller threat than the Soviets did.
President Obama's goals in the Middle East aim at giving Iran the time and the incentive to duplicate China's evolution. This approach may fail, but it offers far greater prospects of success than a policy based on war. The style of leadership required lacks the drama and the strutting associated with the martial approach, but it is much less likely to risk the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and Iranians. On the whole, it is a more mature way of handling foreign relations.
190
All of these suggestions sounds reasonable and constructive. However, the hysteria on the right wing and neocon side is close to the "smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds" rhetoric that caused the catastrophic war with Iraq that the U.S. is still paying for and suffering from.
Somehow, it has not mattered to Republican politicians that this is not just their reflexive hatred of all things Obama, but is an international agreement negotiated by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. In terms of the verification procedure, many of the country's top nuclear scientists have approved the deal including several Nobel Laureates.
The young population of Iran deserves to be given a chance at a future in an international setting. The hardliners -- whether in the U.S. Congress, Israel or Iran -- only want to revisit the past and try to project it on the future.
This is the 21st century. Time to move on, Republicans. Maybe Pope Francis is about to tell you so.
Somehow, it has not mattered to Republican politicians that this is not just their reflexive hatred of all things Obama, but is an international agreement negotiated by the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany. In terms of the verification procedure, many of the country's top nuclear scientists have approved the deal including several Nobel Laureates.
The young population of Iran deserves to be given a chance at a future in an international setting. The hardliners -- whether in the U.S. Congress, Israel or Iran -- only want to revisit the past and try to project it on the future.
This is the 21st century. Time to move on, Republicans. Maybe Pope Francis is about to tell you so.
84
Secretary Burns has written an excellent piece for beginning the serious conversation and debate on JCPOA. Thank you.
Conversely, Secretary Burns omits two major Middle East issues.
One, how should the P5+1 address Iran's motivations for pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iranian leadership appears to have very serious concerns about an attack on Iran by Israel and/or Pakistan. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to dominate the Middle East, and under Netanyahu's rule it has no desire to see a nonviolent solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where a two-state accord is achieved.
Two, what should the P5+1 do about Israel's presumed nuclear capability? Some people argue Israel would be/is a responsible nation for possessing nuclear weapons. The contemporary history of Israel under Netanyahu's rule tells a different tale about Israel as a responsible nuclear power.
Hopefully, Secretary Burns serious piece is not to late for a serious debate on the JCPOA.
Conversely, Secretary Burns omits two major Middle East issues.
One, how should the P5+1 address Iran's motivations for pursuing a nuclear weapon. Iranian leadership appears to have very serious concerns about an attack on Iran by Israel and/or Pakistan. Israel has demonstrated a willingness to use military force to dominate the Middle East, and under Netanyahu's rule it has no desire to see a nonviolent solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict where a two-state accord is achieved.
Two, what should the P5+1 do about Israel's presumed nuclear capability? Some people argue Israel would be/is a responsible nation for possessing nuclear weapons. The contemporary history of Israel under Netanyahu's rule tells a different tale about Israel as a responsible nuclear power.
Hopefully, Secretary Burns serious piece is not to late for a serious debate on the JCPOA.
17
Hmm. The old "Israel is the greater threat" canard.
If so, why is it that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states pledge to match Iran's nuclear capability, but never were concerned with Israel's capability? Why is it that Israel has defended its existence in multiple wars but never even threatened to use nuclear weapons when it had them and when it's defeat seemed quite probable? Why did the world unite to address the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, but doesn't seem concerned at all with Israel's nuclear arsenal? If Israel is so hungry for expansion, as many of you assert, why did they give the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for peace, and Gaza back to the Palestinians in exchange for the hope for peace?
I'll help you out - Israel has a nuclear arsenal meant solely as a deterrent to protect its existence on its small sliver of land. But please keep repeating the tired tropes about how dangerous Israel is, though facts and logic continue to knock your arguments down.
If so, why is it that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states pledge to match Iran's nuclear capability, but never were concerned with Israel's capability? Why is it that Israel has defended its existence in multiple wars but never even threatened to use nuclear weapons when it had them and when it's defeat seemed quite probable? Why did the world unite to address the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons, but doesn't seem concerned at all with Israel's nuclear arsenal? If Israel is so hungry for expansion, as many of you assert, why did they give the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for peace, and Gaza back to the Palestinians in exchange for the hope for peace?
I'll help you out - Israel has a nuclear arsenal meant solely as a deterrent to protect its existence on its small sliver of land. But please keep repeating the tired tropes about how dangerous Israel is, though facts and logic continue to knock your arguments down.
4
"... is to win the long-term struggle with Iran for power in the Middle East."
Has Iran been challenging us in the Middle East? How?
As for Iran being a major power in the ME, that's inevitable. Did you expect the Saudis or Israel to be the major power in ME?
And why would we increase the nearly $4 Billion a year to Israel. Iran is nowhere close to Israel's military strength. Obama instead should convince Israel that the only way out of their problems is to set the Palestinians free. NYT today has an editorial lecturing Turkey about the Kurds, why don't we lecture the Israeli leadership about the Palestinians instead.
Has Iran been challenging us in the Middle East? How?
As for Iran being a major power in the ME, that's inevitable. Did you expect the Saudis or Israel to be the major power in ME?
And why would we increase the nearly $4 Billion a year to Israel. Iran is nowhere close to Israel's military strength. Obama instead should convince Israel that the only way out of their problems is to set the Palestinians free. NYT today has an editorial lecturing Turkey about the Kurds, why don't we lecture the Israeli leadership about the Palestinians instead.
119
I don't agree with everything Westsider says here, but his first point is a good one. We aren't fighting Iran to win a struggle in the Middle East. We need to be teaming with Iran to fight the enemy that threatens them, us and all of our allies in the region - ISIS. I'm hoping the nuclear deal leads to greater cooperation with Iran in fighting this common enemy, not more power struggles against Iran.
2
I do not think Bibi can be convinced of anything. Israel is a lost cause as long as he is in control.
5
Why? Indeed. Turkey has not said to the Kurds; you have no right to exist as a people and our administrative policy is to wipe you off the face of the earth in any way we can. As far as I know and have witnessed for the past 40 years, the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah have never ever for one second given up that ideology or stopped it's fanatical momentum toward achieving that very goal. Perhaps that is why we don't lecture Israel as to its policy toward the Palestinians. It would so nice if the Western and Middle Eastern leaders could just say time out, and really sit down and come up with a workable solution, I think we did do that with Sadat, but then one of the opposition killed him. How can reasonable people deal with such hatred and fanaticism?
2
The U.S. needs to largely withdraw from the ME, obliging the Sunni and Shi'ite Moslems to find some reconciliation on religion and politics without any U.S. responsibility for mediation, pressing ME governments to counter ISIS in their region, and reducing U.S. aid to Israel forcing reversal of its settlement policy, pushing for equitable treatment of Palestinians within Israel, and commiting to a two-state political accommodation. The region is and should not be a strategic U.S. responsibility. U.S. presence and posture simply inhibits solutions.
33
The nuclear deal with Iran was to secure peace in the Middle East with Iranian cooperation and trust, not to keep Iran on perpetual alert on its widely publicised and feared nuclear ambitions necessitating the US presence as a counter and stabilising force.
49
The administrations plan, one hears, is to get this agreement through the Senate without fingerprints, thus eliminating the need for a veto on the record by avoiding a "resolution of disapproval" and then running out the clock. The citizenry is expected to be bewildered by the maneuvering, and turn its attention to the World Series or Tom Brady. The Iranians, if they rejoice, will be expected to do so on the down low, and life will go on with the all important legacy unmarred and this latest triumph achieved by silencing the "nattering nabobs, etc.". Great stuff isn't it?
1
According to Mr. Burns the primary weakness of the Iran deal is that " it could permit Iran to emerge stronger 10 to 15 years from now as restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse."
While this is entirely possible, we know that Israel is currently a nuclear stae with over 200 nuclear warheads in her arsenal. What does the world want to do with that? Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has quietly amassed her nuclear arsenal. And, in the process Israel also sold some of American secters to the Russians.
So, while it is fair to ask about Iran's status 15 years from now it is just as important to ask about Israel's nuclear program as of NOW.
While this is entirely possible, we know that Israel is currently a nuclear stae with over 200 nuclear warheads in her arsenal. What does the world want to do with that? Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has quietly amassed her nuclear arsenal. And, in the process Israel also sold some of American secters to the Russians.
So, while it is fair to ask about Iran's status 15 years from now it is just as important to ask about Israel's nuclear program as of NOW.
135
America has been engaged in 60+ years of regime change overt and covert war against Iran. Iran, unlike Israel, is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has no nuclear weapons. Iran, unlike Japan which is also a party to the NPT, does not have 47 metric tons of enriched weapons grade plutonium. Enough to make 6000 Nagasaki sized nuclear weapons.
Since the end of World War II, Israel has been the recipient of more American aid than any other nation. America has given $3 billion in annual military aid to Israel since 1985. Israel has primarily used that money and those weapons to terrorize, isolate, disenfranchise, kill, wound and displace 6 million Christian or Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion. See Max Blumenthal "Goliath" and The 51 Day War".
Where is there a moderate Arab state that is a civil secular plural egalitarian democracy? Egypt is a military dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is an extremist Islamist state engaged in an ethnic sectarian jihad against non- Arab Sunnis and Shia Muslims.
After going down to military defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan with combined poorly educated poor populations less than Iran, what is the credible American military threat against Iran?
What will China, Russia, France, United Kingdom and France do next about Iran? Was Benjamin Netanyahu invited to address their national legislatures before the P5 +1 reached a deal with Iran?
Since the end of World War II, Israel has been the recipient of more American aid than any other nation. America has given $3 billion in annual military aid to Israel since 1985. Israel has primarily used that money and those weapons to terrorize, isolate, disenfranchise, kill, wound and displace 6 million Christian or Muslim Arab Palestinians under Israeli dominion. See Max Blumenthal "Goliath" and The 51 Day War".
Where is there a moderate Arab state that is a civil secular plural egalitarian democracy? Egypt is a military dictatorship. Saudi Arabia is an extremist Islamist state engaged in an ethnic sectarian jihad against non- Arab Sunnis and Shia Muslims.
After going down to military defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan with combined poorly educated poor populations less than Iran, what is the credible American military threat against Iran?
What will China, Russia, France, United Kingdom and France do next about Iran? Was Benjamin Netanyahu invited to address their national legislatures before the P5 +1 reached a deal with Iran?
118
Last paragraph first sentence ....and" Germany"...instead of France.
1
One more item I would add to Nicholas Burn's list: a formal US commitment to a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East as a first step toward a nuclear-weapons-free world. We shouldn't expect Iran to adhere to a lower standard of national security than we're willing to adhere to ourselves.
27
A formal commitment to a nuclear-free Middle East that would bind ALL countries in the region, including nuclear Israel, to no nuclear weapons. As Israel has never - short of hansdsLed b y the U.S. - made peace with its neighbors...
3
One wonders if Burns and his ilk favor an "all options are on the table" approach to dealing with Iran's purported nuclear "ambitions.". That would of course include first strike use of nuclear weapons, which would make the U.S. a pariah state and would lead to catastrophic consequences in the region and abroad.
8
The US needs to slowly but surely disengage from the Mideast. Mideastern oil is becoming less and less important to US interests and our penchant for wanting to impose US values on Mideastern tribes is doing more harm than good. We need to make it clear to Israel that 60 years of unprecedented US support is coming to an end. Perhaps then Israel will negotiate a two state solution. If not, then so be it, but don't depend on the US to keep you safe from the consequences of "Netanyahu" style of diplomacy.
141
Will occur when the Saudis go back to camels.
Neither a Zionist Jewish state of Israel nor an Islamist Muslim state of Palestine would be civil secular plural egalitarian democracy.
Why not a one-state solution where all human beings are the subject of the self-evident truth that they are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Why not a one-state solution where all human beings are the subject of the self-evident truth that they are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
1
Most of Mr. Burns' suggestions are downright silly. They also counsel the US to continue to use violence and intimidation when far more peaceful and productive means are at hand. The first big problem that Burns' manifests is his inability to address Israel's nuclear weapons and the massively destabilizing role it plays in the ME. The second problem is that by underwriting Israeli violations and abuses, the US incriminates itself in Israeli conduct. Speaking of "Iranian terrorism" without also speaking of Israeli violence pretty much invalidates Mr. Burns' ideas. But Burns does illustrate the massive historical ignorance and political myopia that embodies most Americans' thinking around the Middle East. Inadvertently, Mr. Burns' illustrates why the American foreign policy elite has proven to be so utterly incompetent in its management of the Middle East. It looks at the region through a lens that is so distorted by considerations of Israel that it has no capacity to appreciate reality. Burns is a Democrat, but his musings simply illustrate how widespread this problem is. Consider: is it any wonder that Iran is opposed to American policies and actions in the ME, given the long US history of intervention in that country? Yet the fact of that intervention and its obvious consequences is something most American leaders/commentators conveniently ignore or don't seem to know. This level of historical and political ignorance is striking and disturbing.
75
I have to wonder if Burns ever saw Lawrence of Arabia?
Mr. Burns has spent 12 years after he finished a master degree working in the federal government, 4 under Clinton followed by 8 under Bush. Then he moved to academia.
Is there any surprise his suggestions are silly?
Is there any surprise his suggestions are silly?
Fat chance.
Mr. Obama orchestrated his "pivot" to the Pacific precisely to DIMINISH our commitment to the Middle East. Of course, that effort never resulted in anything useful given our unwillingness to engage China on its aggressive moves in the South China Sea or Russia in its unchallenged development of the Arctic; but, then, the "pivot" never was anything more than a means of lowering our defense posture in one place without increasing it elsewhere -- it was a means of de-emphasizing defense so that greater resources might be dedicated to liberal domestic priorities. Senior military leaders are telling us that our military hasn't been so unprepared in DECADES to address global challenges.
So, the president promised Israel and Arab allies in the region that should Iran become bellicose with the nukes we apparently now accept they will develop, we'll be there to protect them. Not being children, those allies simply don't believe him because they don't see the means or even the interest in redeeming that pledge.
To do what the author recommends would require a complete reversal of the Obama global military strategy, which is to DE-emphasize the world's dependence on us for ANY purpose. He's basically tossed the Middle East under the bus and told them to avoid the tires as best they can on their own dime.
I'd love to see a "pivot" back to a stronger American role in helping keep the world relatively stable. I don't expect to see it anytime soon.
Mr. Obama orchestrated his "pivot" to the Pacific precisely to DIMINISH our commitment to the Middle East. Of course, that effort never resulted in anything useful given our unwillingness to engage China on its aggressive moves in the South China Sea or Russia in its unchallenged development of the Arctic; but, then, the "pivot" never was anything more than a means of lowering our defense posture in one place without increasing it elsewhere -- it was a means of de-emphasizing defense so that greater resources might be dedicated to liberal domestic priorities. Senior military leaders are telling us that our military hasn't been so unprepared in DECADES to address global challenges.
So, the president promised Israel and Arab allies in the region that should Iran become bellicose with the nukes we apparently now accept they will develop, we'll be there to protect them. Not being children, those allies simply don't believe him because they don't see the means or even the interest in redeeming that pledge.
To do what the author recommends would require a complete reversal of the Obama global military strategy, which is to DE-emphasize the world's dependence on us for ANY purpose. He's basically tossed the Middle East under the bus and told them to avoid the tires as best they can on their own dime.
I'd love to see a "pivot" back to a stronger American role in helping keep the world relatively stable. I don't expect to see it anytime soon.
3
If our job has been to "keep the world relatively stable," we have certainly messed it up. In case you hadn't noticed.
24
tom:
If we've "messed up" at all, it's been a very recent phenomenon -- actually starting 20 January 2009.
If we've "messed up" at all, it's been a very recent phenomenon -- actually starting 20 January 2009.
How many of your kids are you willing to send off?
9
How about moderate Middle East countries stepping up to the plate with a strong military coalition to take care of problems in their own back yard.
16
For some Iran and its proxies Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas are the problems in their own back yard. Should they too step up to the plate?
5
Which moderate middle east countries would you suggest?
With only a little over a year to go in his term, what Obama does is of less importance than what his successor does. And any rapprochement with Netanyahu would be seen for what it is.
The rest of the ideas presented here are wishful thinking.
The rest of the ideas presented here are wishful thinking.
13
I believe Professor Burns' proposals make excellent sense, with one exception. His assertion that the U.S should pledge to use military means to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb, rather than preserving an ominous silence that would leave the mullahs in the dark as to the American response, would tie the hands of future presidents. Iran is not the Soviet Union or China. Even with the bomb the country would remain a regional power, with limited capacity to threaten the U.S. or Israel. Barring an invasion of the country, however, there is ultimately no way to prevent its development of a bomb. To commit ourselves in advance to choosing that option would be irresponsible. The war itself would be a disaster.
22
Exactly, it's the stupid tough guy approach of "deal or war" that diminishes our bargaining position because everyone knows we want to avoid a war at all costs. Thus, Iran always knew we'd make a deal.
9
We could always invade another Middle Eastern country; that is, if we can find one we haven't already invaded.
43
Whatever Obama should do next about Iran, it certainly ought not be be what the neocons and Israeli partisans want him to do, or would do in his place.
They reject all he has done, because they are wrong. They are just as wrong about what should be done next.
Specifically, militarizing this more, threatening and coming to the edge of war again and again, is the making of the problem, not the making of a way out of what they did to us.
They reject all he has done, because they are wrong. They are just as wrong about what should be done next.
Specifically, militarizing this more, threatening and coming to the edge of war again and again, is the making of the problem, not the making of a way out of what they did to us.
195
Without Congressional support a president can do nothing. The government in Washington enters a leaderless state of paralysis.
It would have been best, when the voters foolishly handed control of both houses of Congress to the GOP, for Obama and Biden both to have resigned and thrown the presidency to an astonished Boehner. He and his colleagues would have made a horrible mess of things, for which those who voted them into power could only thank themselves.
A precedent might have been set for what needs to happen when a mindless, mud-slinging opposition party is handed control of both houses of Congress. The most severe critics suddenly find themselves being handed the blistering hot potato and answering to the public for how courageously and well they handle it.
It would have been best, when the voters foolishly handed control of both houses of Congress to the GOP, for Obama and Biden both to have resigned and thrown the presidency to an astonished Boehner. He and his colleagues would have made a horrible mess of things, for which those who voted them into power could only thank themselves.
A precedent might have been set for what needs to happen when a mindless, mud-slinging opposition party is handed control of both houses of Congress. The most severe critics suddenly find themselves being handed the blistering hot potato and answering to the public for how courageously and well they handle it.
5