Why the Naysayers Are Wrong About the Iran Deal
Obama pretends that the alternative to this deal is war. No, the alternative is increased economic pressure until Iran yelps for surrender.As Marco Rubio puts it, “Give Iran a very clear choice: You can have an economy or you can have a weapons program.”
.. We have a glimpse of what might happen. In 2003, Iran seemingly offered a comprehensive “grand bargain” to resolve relations with the United States, but George W. Bush’s administration dismissed it. Since then, Iran has gone from a tiny number of centrifuges to 19,000, getting within two months of “breakout” to a nuclear weapon. The point: Fulmination is not a substitute for policy, and a multilateral international agreement achieves far more protection than finger-wagging.
.. So we apply the same economic pressure that caused the collapse of the Castro regime in Cuba in 1964? The same isolation that overthrew the North Korean regime in 1993? The same sanctions that led Saddam Hussein to give up power peacefully in Iraq in 2000? Oh, wait.…
.. The truth is that the US is getting the better end of this deal. We give up basically nothing and ensure a long cooling off period in which Iran can’t realistically develop nuclear weapons without advanced notice. There is no possible deal that could prevent them from developing nukes forever. Even war probably wouldn’t prevent that. The only realistic way to prevent it in the long run is to convince Iran not to want one by offering them something they want more – economic integration with the rest of the world.