are in this morning's newspapers.
While I realize both might appear in the pundit roundup, I thought it worthwhile to call attention to both.
The first is Israel's Iran Dilemma by Roger Cohen in The New York Times
The second is Iran deal is a diplomatic success story by Eugen Robinson in The Washington Post
Cohen notes of Israel's opposition to the plan that
Israel is the status-quo Middle Eastern power par excellence because the status quo cements its nuclear-armed domination. Any change is suspect, including popular Arab uprisings against despotism. As changes go, this U.S.-Iranian breakthrough is big, almost as big as an Israeli-Palestinian peace would be.
Robinson writes
Under the Geneva pact, half of Iran’s 20 percent uranium will be diluted and no more will be produced. A military strike that eliminated half of the potential fuel for a “breakout” bomb — and wiped out the capability to make more — would surely be reckoned a success. It is just plain dumb to attack Kerry and Obama for achieving the same thing without firing a shot.
There is much more in each column. Below the squiggle I will explore a bit more, and then if you do not mind, offer some thoughts of my own.
The key portion of Robinson's column is towards the end. I am going to push fair use a bit (and if you want the hot links go to the original):
Just as Richard Nixon’s opening to China unsettled U.S. allies in Asia, so has Obama’s phone call with Rouhani unnerved our allies in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who should be cautiously pleased that the threat from Iran is at least temporarily diminished, has reacted with irrational outrage. Saudi Arabia’s autocratic leaders are sulking and grumbling.
It may be that Iran is incapable of becoming a responsible actor on the world stage as long as it is led by the mullahs. But there was a time when it was hard to imagine China being anything but a pariah as long as it was led by the Maoists — yet now Beijing is the capital of one of the world’s economic superpowers, with Mao’s picture still watching over Tiananmen Square.
Regimes do evolve, sometimes in ways that make the world a safer place. Obama is boldly asking this question: Can it happen in Iran?
The key is making the world a safer place. For all our complaints about Obama's actions since receiving his Nobel Peace Prize, taking a bold action that has the real possibility of PREVENTING violence, both in the short term (does anyone really think Israel will launch an attack during the period of the deal) and long-term (the fears of a nuclear-armed Iran represents an existential threat not only in the mind of Netanyahu and the Saud dynsasty, but among many other nations in the region as well).
Cohen can be very blunt:
Let us be clear. This is the best deal that could be had. Nothing, not even sustained Israeli bombardment, can reverse the nuclear know-how Iran possesses. The objective must be to ring-fence the acquired capability so its use can only be peaceful.
Two later paragraphs explore the thought further:
The United States has acknowledged that any lasting accord must concede a limited enrichment program to Iran. The agreement speaks, under an eventual long-term agreement, of an Iranian nuclear program that “will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT” — so putatively placing Iran in the same category as Japan or Germany, other signatories of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty with enrichment programs. Israel, to the contrary, wants zero Iranian enrichment and Libyan-style nuclear dismantlement.
The United States is prepared to conceive of an Islamic Republic fully reintegrated in the community of nations, with equal rights. That state of affairs is a very long way off. Iran will not swiftly shake off the suspicions its actions and (sometimes vile) words have aroused. Nor should it be allowed to. But Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation.
Let's be clear - for all of the bloviation of Netanyahu and some of his American supporters, this is very different than Neville Chamberlain going to Munich to appease a leader who clearly had both expansionist aims and a desire for world-wide domination. As Cohen puts it in his final sentence,
Cheap allusions to 1938 are a poor template for Israel in the 21st century.
I am of Jewish background. I fully understand that the first war Israel loses will mean the end of its existence. I also happen to think, as do many of Jewish background in this nation, that the the policies Netanyahu has pursued have made Israel less secure, the region less stable, do not recognize the legitimate aspirations of others, and thus cannot serve as an obstacle for our nation to take actions not only in our best interests, but in the interests of world peace and stability.
There is much more in both columns.
Let me add a few additional personal thoughts/observations.
I am willing to be critical when I think this administration is wrong. I am obligated to offer praise when it is warranted. Yes, there is risk to this deal, but it is a deal well worth making. I too believe it may be the best that can now be gotten. It is a first step. Like all first steps in negotiations between those mistrustful of one another, int contains things that will build confidence in the relationship. As much as we have hardliners who will seek to undermine the agreement, similar problems exist for the Iranian government, including among some of its people as conditioned to think they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Americans, Israelis and Saudis as the latter two fear a nuclear-armed Iran.
Forget that Iran has large oil reserves. They also have a large population whose economic future cannot be maintained and developed solely by petroleum. The desire for nuclear energy is a reasonable approach even as we remain aware of the possible problems as demonstrated in Japan, even as some other countries (Germany for example) are moving away from the nuclear power they already have.
Isn't it a start that a nation which could seek to totally exploit its petroleum to the detriment of all of us is willing to look at alternative sources of energy?
There are many reasons to support this deal.
As a result, this administration on this issue deserves our full support.
The two columns I explore in this posting help make that clear.
I hope those of you who have read find them both useful.
And of course I will read and consider any viewpoint to the contrary you might choose to share.
In this case, I believe my final salutation is most appropriate:
Peace.