You know, I really do not believe that our national effort to curb further nuclear proliferation in the world is merely or even partially related to rigging the 2016 elections to make Republicans look bad in comparison. Mind you, I am a profoundly cynical person, but even I am not so cynical as to suspect that negotiations to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is all just a plot to something-something Hillary Clinton. That sounds a bit deranged.
We are currently negotiating with Iran over their nuclear capabilities for several very good actual foreign policy reasons. We do not want more nations to have nuclear weapons. We especially do not want nations in unstable regions of the world to have nuclear weapons. On the other hand, we do not want to manufacture for ourselves another looming war, because we have already spent our looming war budget for the next hundred years, what with the Iraq debacle, and we very rightly are wary about leaping into the next one so quickly, especially based on the say-so of the precise same characters who so vigorously endorsed the last one.
The other half of the problem is that Iran as a nation would be insane not to consider building a nuclear weapon, given each lesson we in America have throttled into the world. We overthrew the Iraqi government, which had no nuclear weapons, but have taken a conspicuously more cautious approach to the monstrous but nuclear-enabled dictatorship of North Korea. We have already demonstrated to Iran a willingness to meddle in their own self-governence, on account of how America previously did precisely that. We have our own pundits on the teevees who freely fess up to wanting to do the same thing again, and who get rather spittle-flecked when imagining how we would do it, and no matter how corrupt or dismal the current Iranian regime the primary post-Cold War foreign policy lesson each nation has learned is that having nuclear weapons is the surest way to prevent America and/or ambitious neighbors from bringing "freedom" to your nation by paving over the parts of it they don't like.
And so we are at an impasse. America does not want a nuclear Iran because there are already enough only-marginally stable nuclear powers in the world, thank you very much. Iran would like to have a nuclear weapon because they believe, for some uncanny reason, that America poses a distinct threat to them that can only be diminished by becoming a nuclear power. The negotiations are an attempt to assure Iran that they can indeed agree to a permanent or semi-permanent status as non-nuclear nation and still retain their sovereignty, an effort that continues to hit bumps as myriad hawks on our side of the globe mutter that no matter what America promises Iran right now, there is no need for future Americans to feel similarly constrained even a mere two years from now.
Do we want a nuclear-free Iran? One would think so. Is it worth negotiating with them over how that could be achieved, other than a military bombing campaign and/or invasion? It certainly seems worth discussion. Is it all right if the current administration engages in those talks, even though the current Congress does not like the man and is in all other instances singularly obsessed with undoing his every action?
Yes. Yes it is. There simply is no other credible way to answer that question.
Comments are closed on this story.