The Iran Deal Must Be Shielded From Hyperbole

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82184a3e-3511-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852.html#axzz3hKijoPPC

There are still seven weeks before Congress votes on the Iran deal but opponents’ rhetoric is already past boiling point. Mike Huckabee, the Republican presidential hopeful, said this week that Barack Obama’s deal would “march Israel up to the doors of the oven” — a grotesque reference to the Holocaust. Mr Huckabee has refused to disown his analogy.
Ted Cruz, another White House hopeful, said Mr Obama had made himself into the leading state sponsor of terrorism by agreeing to unfreeze $100bn or more in Iran’s assets. Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas, likened John Kerry, the secretary of state, to Pontius Pilate, for having “washed his hands” of the deal’s compliance regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency is separately negotiating the rules of inspection with Iran.

The list goes on. Supporters are bracing for a long, hot August of more such invective. But critics should beware. The more they holler, the harder it will be for America’s partners to keep unity on the world’s best shot in years at bottling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The deal’s more sober opponents risk being drowned out by the hyperbole. They have two objections. The first is that the deal will replenish the coffers of Al-Quds and other arms of the Iranian revolution. Far from restraining the mullahs, it would nourish a new bout of regional adventurism. Hizbollah, Syria’s Assad regime, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels would benefit most.

Such collateral damage is indeed one possibility. Yet the deal itself conveys advantages. Mr Obama is betting the boost to economic engagement that flows from the agreement will bolster the reformers who negotiated it — not least Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, and the country’s best hope of steering it in a more moderate direction. It is the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (Isis), rather than Hizbollah and its Shia offshoots, that poses the greater threat to US national interests. The same applies to Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, argues otherwise. But he has built his career, and a shaky new coalition government, on ginning up the existential threat from Iran.

Second, critics complain that the deal postpones, rather than dismantles, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They are right. The agreement is set to last a minimum of 10 years after which all bets are off. But they fail to spell out any better alternative. Should Congress reject the deal in September, and override Mr Obama’s veto, Iran would be free of virtually all constraint. It would almost certainly accelerate its nuclear programme. The US, and Israel, would just as assuredly step up threats of military action to stop it. It is hard to overstate how destabilising that would be.

It is also very hard to see how this would improve US, or Israeli, national security. In addition, Washington’s move would be unilateral. America’s partners, notably the Europeans, China and Russia, have made it clear they will lift Iranian sanctions regardless of what the US does. Rejection by Capitol Hill would thus bring about the worst of both worlds. Iran’s assets would be unfrozen and it would be far more disposed to put them to bad use.

None of these arguments has any chance of winning over the deal’s
diehard critics, such as Mr Huckabee and Mr Cruz. Their aim is to gain attention in a crowded Republican race increasingly dominated by Donald Trump. All the more reason to ignore them. Mr Trump cannot be the standard by which serious diplomacy is measured. The pros and cons of Mr Obama’s Iran agreement deserve the closest scrutiny. The rhetorical bomb throwers are no Greek chorus. They should exit, stage right.

-->