The current Iran deal seems at best to delay a direct military showdown, which still seems inevitable, as Iran remains an enemy, without any commitment to change its foreign policies and ambitions (“Delaying The Inevitable,” Editorial, April 3).
But the suspension of sanctions certainly will have the effect of materially strengthening Iran — that is, strengthening the regime that still remains our enemy and on course to engage in military conflict with us. Doing so puts American lives at greater risk, as the probability of conflict down the road persists.
The debate about whether the alternative to the current deal is military action/war or a better deal speaks only to the near-term questions. It is debatable and uncertain whether or not increased and continued sanctions would result in more/better concessions from Iran. That is the debate President Obama and his team seems to focus on.
This near-term debate should not mask the longer-term perspective, which is that Iran remains on a confrontation course with America. An equally important consideration is if we will — by going forward under the deal by which the United States will suspend/end sanctions — confront a militarily/strategically stronger or weaker Iran. Unfortunately, the deal as disclosed seems more likely than not to head us toward a stronger Iran, still in conflict with America and the West. This seems a particularly bad result given that the America seemed to enter the negotiation in a stronger negotiation position, economically, militarily and diplomatically. Why should we be giving up our advantages, to strengthen a known continuing enemy? By definition, that is a bad deal.