Posted on 07/21/2015 11:47:42 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
We have seen this before. In 1980, the American people elected a president with a reputation for resolve and on day one of Ronald Reagan's presidency, literally as he took the oath of office, the Iranians released the hostages that they had been holding prisoner for 444 days. The time to show leadership on Iran is now, not after one gets settled into the position.
A ruckus has erupted between Republican presidential candidates over Iran. In a speech announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on July 13, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker declared that he would “terminate the bad deal with Iran on the very first day in office."
Former Florida Governor and fellow presidential candidate Jeb Bush also declared his opposition to the Iran deal, saying “this isn’t diplomacy—its appeasement.” At a rally days later, however, Bush said that he would not call for the deal’s repeal on day one, explaining: “I will not have a confirmed secretary of state; I will not have a confirmed national security team in place; I will not have consulted with our allies. I will not have had the intelligence briefings to have made a decision…It’s important to be mature and thoughtful about this.”
Some pundits have supported Bush’s caution and disparaged Walker’s statement as “lacking nuance” but in reality, Walker’s position is correct. Why?
(Full disclosure: both of us have briefed Walker.)
There are actually two separate issues to be addressed here. First, will a new president be able to judge the Iran deal as a failure on his or her first day in office? Second, will a new president be in a position to terminate the deal on day one? The answer to both of these questions is not only yes, but that doing anything else would be irresponsible.
First, the Iran deal does not protect U.S. interests and one does not need access to classified intelligence briefings to understand this basic fact. Let us recall that this is perhaps the foremost national security question of our time. U.S. policy on this issue will do much to shape the Middle East, the nonproliferation regime, and the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. The deal allows Iran to become a nuclear weapons threshold state, lifts conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes, and provides over $140 billion to the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. If the deal simply does what it is designed to do, it will be an easy call for the next president to judge it a failure well before taking office.
Second, there is much the president can and should do to begin the process of terminating the Iran deal on day one, and even before. This is not a question of formalities, such as whether a Secretary of State has been confirmed. Only one question matters: is dismantling this deal a priority or not? The candidate’s policy team can even now begin developing a comprehensive strategy for walking away from and improving upon the existing Iran deal. The candidate and his top advisers can begin meeting with representatives from allies and major powers before and during the transition to explain the new direction in which they plan to take America’s Iran policy. The new president can announce America’s new Iran policy in his or her acceptance speech and in the inaugural address. The new president can, on day one, sign an executive order to enforce some American sanctions already on the books. And the list goes on.
Moreover, not only will a new Republican president be in a position to telegraph his or her Iran policy well before inauguration day, he or she has a responsibility to do so. Everyone knows undoing the damage from this deal will not be easy, but Governor Walker’s strong language clearly conveys the essential message: this deal will not stand.
Every top-tier Republican candidate, including Governor Bush, has promised to increase economic pressure on Iran. The process for making that happen begins now. The effectiveness of sanctions against Iran depends largely on expectations. If the business community believes that the Iranian market will be permanently open for business, contracts will be signed, trade and finance will begin to flow, and it will be difficult to reverse these trends later. If, on the other hand, there is an even chance that U.S. sanctions will be re-imposed in 18 short months, many will stay away. Money is a coward.
Statements of irresolution, therefore, inadvertently boost the Iranian economy and buttress Obama’s bad deal. They also undercut members of Congress who are fighting to terminate the pact now, before more damage is done.
Confirming a Secretary of State, working with allies, and receiving intelligence briefings are important, but it is hard to see how these processes could veto a president’s top national security priority. A new president will be unprepared if he comes to office still undecided about the foremost foreign policy challenge of our time.
Some pundits argue that if Governor Walker were to terminate the Iran deal on day one, the Iranians would respond by kicking out the inspectors and sprinting for the bomb. That, too, is a misreading of how the world works. If the Iranians see that the new president is resolute and prepared to follow through on his threats, fear of consequences will make them less rather than more aggressive.
We have seen this before. In 1980, the American people elected a president with a reputation for resolve and on day one of Ronald Reagan's presidency, literally as he took the oath of office, the Iranians released the hostages that they had been holding prisoner for 444 days. The time to show leadership on Iran is now, not after one gets settled into the position.
As Governor Walker said in a press gaggle this weekend in Iowa, “I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a cabinet together or for a certain period of time… I’m going to be prepared to be president on day one."
Michael Doran is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former Senior Director for Middle East Policy on the National Security Council. Matthew Kroenig is Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow at the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at The Atlantic Council.
Stephen F. Hayes: Bush-Walker Dispute Catches Fire Over Iran Nuclear Deal
"The US said on Tuesday it was disturbed by an outburst of anti-American rhetoric from Iran's supreme leader in the wake of the nuclear deal, as fierce debates over the agreement began in both the Iranian parliament and US Congress.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said he was troubled by a fiery speech in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei promised to continue fomenting unrest across the Middle East and said Iran's "policy towards the arrogant US will not change".
"If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling, and we’ll have to wait and see," Mr Kerry told al-Arabiya News. .................."
....."Walker’s Cheneyism was confirmed over the weekend after a telling back-and-forth with the man the Wisconsinite hopes to displace as the choice of the Republican establishment: former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Responding to over-the-top statements from some of his fellow Republicans—including, presumably, Walker’s “terminate the bad deal with Iran on Day One” line—Bush offered precisely the sort of measured response that unsettles the party’s neoconservative agitators."....
"Perhaps the very worst aspect of the Iran deal reached in Vienna is the commitment of the US and European powers to teach the Iranians how to resist attacks such as Stuxnet. Although it has received very little media coverage (Adam Kredo of the Free Beacon is the notable exception), the agreement states (buried on page 142 of the 159 page deal, in Annex III, under Civil Nuclear Cooperation, Section D, under Nuclear Safety, Safeguards and Security, item 10):.......
....The language obviously s not limited to physical threats, so must include advanced cyber warfare training. The Israelis are outraged. Ari Yasher of Israel National News writes:.........
In effect, the US and the other signatories are entering into a one-way defense pact with the Iranians, against Israel. This aspect of the deal must be forcefully brought to the attention of every Democrat in the Senate, including Chuck Schumer.
The US providing advanced training to Iran to defeat Israel is an outrage."
".....So when Walker says, “I believe that a president shouldn’t wait to act until they put a Cabinet together or for a certain period of time. I believe that they should be prepared to act on the very first day they take office,” it is the kind of statement that inspires confidence. Bush’s criticisms of Walker do not inspire confidence. In fact, they only make Walker a viable alternative to Bush..."
1. "this does not protect US interests" -- I ask: how? An Iran that is a sufficient threat to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey (Sunni neighbors of the Shia state) is good to keep the Moslems fighting each other -- we can stop giving funds to the Pakis and just fight back and sell them both weapons (old preferably) and goods and let them kill each other
2. If you want to dismantle the removal of sanctions against Iran, why not put sanctions on the current holders of the "Islamic nuclear bomb" -- Pakistan? And on the trainers and suppliers of AlQaeda and the Islamic state -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE?
The title says it all.
FReep mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.