Around the Web: US-Iranian “Peace Accords” Edition

Brandon Christensen Current Events, Links, , , , , , , ,
  1. Ezra Klein in the Washington Post
  2. Ed Krayewski in Reason
  3. John Allen Gay writing in the National Interest
  4. Daniel Larison in the American Conservative
  5. Stephen Walt has a great piece in Foreign Policy
  6. Angelo Codevilla on the Liberty Law blog

My own reaction is “great!”

This is fantastic news for everybody, including the Israelis. If the Israelis were smart, they’d jump on the opportunity and start forging ties with the Iranians again. Saudi Arabia, the state Israel is nudging closer and closer to, is the real terrorist factory in the Middle East and I don’t see how Israeli long-term interests would benefit from an alliance with the most vicious regime in the Arab world.

With that being said, I don’t know too many details about the deal. I know Tehran promised not to build a bomb (yeah right), but will sanctions end? If so, how soon?

To me sanctions are the most important issue here. Tehran getting a nuclear bomb is understandable given her neighborhood, so it’s not really a big deal when it gets the bomb. However, if sanctions are still around when Iran gets the bomb then you can bet Tehran is going to be much more bellicose than it is, and the people of Iran will give the regime the legitimacy it needs to wield its newfound power.

4 thoughts on “Around the Web: US-Iranian “Peace Accords” Edition”

  1. Great it was, completely agreed! There will be no common benefits between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Even the reformist paty of Israel, Cadima, is happy with the agreement between Iran and 5+1. Geneva can become just the start of a long way for a permanent peace in mid-east. The behaviour of west can influence the future behaviour of Iran. Radicalists in Iran are in the weakest situation since I can remember right now. They’re trying and trying to find just one thing to show that the 5+1 aren’t dependable. They’re very week now and Rouhani can do everything he wants in this situation. Even the supreme leader had to support the foreign policy of government

    Reply

  2. “Tehran getting a nuclear bomb is understandable given her neighborhood, so it’s not really a big deal when it gets the bomb.”

    I have to disagree. It would be a really big [bad] deal for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. The reason I agree that it’s a great [albeit short term] deal is the prospect that Iran will agree to a nuclear energy program and not pursue weapons.

    Reply

    • Okay, I’ll meet you half-way for the moment (gimme a sec). Do you think a nuclear-armed Iran would be bad because nuclear weapons suck, or because Iran would have a nuclear weapon?

      If your reasoning is due to the former, I’d have to reluctantly agree with you (who wouldn’t, right?). However, if it’s the latter I think we’d have to argue some more. Kind of. Here is what I wrote about a nuclear-armed Iran in June of last year (I apologize for the length):

      Now let me be frank: a nuclear Iran, as the state stands today, would be a big problem for peace not only in the Middle East but throughout the world. If Iran were to get the bomb it would suddenly have much more leverage in international affairs. Not only would a nuclear-armed Iran have the capabilities to deter Western powers, but it would also have the capability to be much more bellicose in its foreign policy. Instead of mere tentacles in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Iraq, Tehran would have power (that loathsome word) to back up its interests in the region. Furthermore, a nuclear-armed Iran would start another military arms race in the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia and Israel would seek to bolster their own capabilities to deter an Iranian threat.

      If you think a nuclear-armed Iran is bad, just imagine a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia. Remember, Persians don’t use suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic. That’s something Arabs (and Sinhalese) do. Additionally, Iran is not really a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. Islamism has been stifled in Iran largely because it is already the state religion, which means that all Islamist activities have been co-opted into the official state apparatus. If you still have trouble following, just remember: state apparatuses are a handy tool used by dictatorships to water down the more radical elements of a philosophy or movement.

      Emphasis mine. If this deal leads to the end of sanctions then I don’t see Iran being the same nasty character that it is today. A post-sanctions Iran will inevitably become a less isolated place, and a less isolated place becomes a more liberal place. A more liberal place will become a more wealthier place, and a more wealthier place will become a more blahblahblah.

      You see things differently?

    • The short answer is ‘both’. I think we’re on the same wavelength so-to-speak. My biggest objection to Iran specifically having nukes is that in short order Saudi Arabia would want them and probably get them [from Pakistan in my opinion]. I’ll be blunt; as loathsome as I find the Iranian regime I think the Saudis are worse.
      I’m not as optimistic as you that an Iran without economic sanctions will become a better place any time soon. I just think that Iran without nukes makes for a better world. I don’t know that we’ll ever have no nuclear weapons but the fewer the better.

Leave a reply to Terry Amburgey Cancel reply