So far, the only strong support for the Iran deal has been from Syria, Hezbollah, Obama administration officials, and certain journalists--including Thomas Friedman, now.
Yeah, stupid Israelis--thinking that John Kerry couldn't negotiated a deal that will halt Iran's nuclear drive! The simpletons!
Less than 12 hours after Obama announced the agreement at the White House, Democratic and Republican lawmakers ripped it on Sunday morning talk shows, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking to Twitter to bash the terms as a “historic mistake” and warn that “this ‘first step’, might be the last step.”
What rubes! Let Kerry handle everything. He's kind of big deal, you know.
But let's check on Friedman:
I’VE never been in a big earthquake, but I know what one feels like now, having spent this past week in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The American-led interim negotiations in Geneva to modestly loosen some sanctions on Iran in return for some curbs on its nuclear program — in advance of talks for an end to sanctions in return for an end to any Iranian bomb-making capability — has hit the Sunni Arab world (and Israel) like a geopolitical earthquake. If and when a deal is struck, it could have a bigger impact on this region than anything since the Camp David peace treaty and Iran’s Islamic Revolution in the 1970s combined to reorder the Middle East.
Ah, Tom. No issue is so big that he can't preface it with a self-inflating mention of his most recent globe-trotting with the international conference set. He's kind of a big deal, too, you know.
To his credit, while unwilling to criticize this Kerry deal, Friedman's conditional bravo on the possibility of a good final deal rests on an end state that there is no possibility of achieving under Kerry (or possibly anyone):
We can only manage it by being very clear about our goals: to unleash politics inside Iran as much as possible, while leashing its nuclear program as tightly as possible, while continuing to protect our Arab and Israeli allies.
That is, Friedman wants regime change in Iran--a long evolutionary one, of course--while we prevent Iran from going nuclear until Iran's regime changes.
Yeah, nice work if you can get it.
Firedman even makes a good point that an Iran friendly to the United States risks upsetting our Arab allies in the region who got used to having their concerns raised above Iran since the revolution in Tehran.
But I think they really can get used to an Iran friendly to the US again if that country is not a mullah-run Shia nutball factory armed with nuclear weapons.
So I'll give Friedman some partial credit here, and not repeat my usual slam. Although how Friedman thinks we go from this faux interim deal to a non-nuclear Iran with politics unleashed is beyond me.
But his bosses are equally hopeful:
The interim nuclear deal between Iran and the major powers is an important step toward resolving the increasingly dangerous dispute over Iran’s progress on production of a nuclear weapon. President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran deserve credit for resisting fierce domestic opposition and a 30-year history of animosity between the two countries to get to this point.
How can this be a revolutionary change in relations when Iran doesn't even admit to having a nuclear weapons program? When Iran continues to support Assad to the hilt? When Iran is bankrolling Hamas and Hezbollah rocket arsenals? When Iran is undermining Iraq and hoping to do the same in Afghanistan?
In what alternate universe is it possible to call this an important first step?
The only thing we managed to do that can remotely be called a good thing is Iran's limits on enrichment of uranium.
And even without an agreement, Iran has managed that stockpile on its own to push back the clock and keep the bombers at bay! Isn't it just as likely that without a deal Iran would continue to keep their stockpiles below the "red line" level until they are ready to use it to make missile warheads?
Of course, the editors at the New York Times make it clear what alternative universe they are in:
Even though the temporary agreement does not achieve permanent and total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program, no one can seriously argue that it doesn’t make the world safer. It would freeze key aspects of Iran’s program for six months and lay the ground for negotiating a comprehensive, permanent deal.
Ahem. I very seriously argue that this doesn't make the world safer.
One, how does this interim agreement lay the ground for a permanent deal when Iran doesn't even admit to having nuclear weapons programs?
The Times editorial board weighs a false peace for six months that allows Iran to continue work on non-agreement aspects of their programs without threat of an American or Israeli attack against added pressure of American-led sanctions and threats of air strikes and concludes the former makes the world more safe.
The former could give Iran nukes sooner than they would otherwise while the latter might involve a conventional war that puts off the day of Iran's nukes. But the former is judged so easily safer for the world that no one can seriously argue against their position.
Have a super sparkly day.
