Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu totally changed
the debate on a nuclear Iran in his brilliant speech to Congress Tuesday.
Until he spoke, objections to the emerging draft treaty with
Iran centered on technical, arcane issues like the number of centrifuges the
agreement would let Iran continue to operate and the level of uranium
enrichment it would be permitted to maintain. These technical arguments do not
play well in public and assume a level of knowledge that most of us don't have.
It was easy for defenders of the deal to sidetrack our objections.
But Netanyahu changed all that, by making the issue of the
agreement's expiration date the key objection to the treaty. He was quite right
that the expiration of a treaty banning nuclear weapons is tantamount to an
invitation to proceed with development. That's an argument we all can
understand. It defies logic to invest in a 10- or 15-year deal with as
implacable and stubborn a foe as Islamist Iran. A ban must last as long as the
offensive regime itself remains in power and does not modify its behavior.
Indeed, by tying the ban on nuclear weapons to Iran's
international conduct in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen, Netanyahu
created a framework for what should be U.S. policy toward Iran. While President
Obama will not accept this linkage, undoubtedly a new Republican president
would.
Bibi's speech ties Obama's hands -- he now would face almost
certain congressional censure and backlash if he were to sign a deal with any
expiration date on it. Netanyahu's argument is irrefutable. No congressman can
ignore it.
Politically, the most important thing to remember about the
Iranian issue is that it will likely be resolved, one way or the other, by
Election Day 2016. Iran will either have the bomb -- or be well on its way to
obtaining it -- or not. We will know the answer. It will be clear who was right
and who was wrong. We won't have to guess. And the answer to that question will
haunt Hillary Clinton, if it turns out that her and Obama's policies were
misguided.
Very rarely are political issues subject to such closure. By
the time of the 2016 elections, barring a crash, we will still be debating the
sustainability of the Obama economic recovery. We will continue arguing about
ObamaCare. Climate change will remain a subject of debate. But an Iranian
nuclear program won't be a matter for debate. The outcome, for better or worse,
of administration policy on the issue will be clear and an accepted feature of
our political debate.
Just as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev could not go back
and claim his Cuban missile adventure was wise, just as British Prime Minister
Neville Chamberlain couldn't reach back to justify his appeasement when German
tanks rolled through Poland, Obama and Clinton's Iran policy will be an evident
failure or success by the 2016 election.
Once the verdict of history is in, its implications are
ruthless. There is no appeal. And, in this case, we will know the answer before
we vote on a new president.
Netanyahu has redefined the debate so that a deal with an
expiration date or a sunset clause will have to be considered a failure. The
logic is so clear.
If Iran actually explodes a nuclear weapon or clearly has
achieved the status of "threshold nuclear power" or has agreed to a
deal with a time limit, it will be obvious that Obama and Clinton's negotiating
strategy was naive and that they were had by the Ayatollah.
This situation is fraught with peril, in particular for
Clinton's candidacy. There will be no room for speculation as to whether her
policies as secretary of State succeeded or failed. The outcome will be obvious
to us all to see.
Source: Published on TheHill.com on March 3, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment