Tag: Iran

Victory in Iran

The best possible move for the United States to make in regards to the war in Iran is clear. President Trump should declare a resounding victory in the war, order our entire naval fleet to weigh anchor, and then steam out of the region tomorrow with no intent to return.

This would not be a good outcome for the US. In fact, it would be a bad one in many ways. However, Trump has proven to be such an abjectly incompetent and bumbling Commander in Chief that it would result in less damage to the US than any move Trump would order our military to make while staying in the region. Incidentally, it would also be the least damaging to our allies (if we have any left), the global community, and even the Iranian people.

The truth of the matter is that it would not even be a minor victory, let alone a resounding one. In fact, it would be a sound defeat. But Trump never lets the truth get in the way of tooting his own horn. More importantly, he is always willing to do something that he thinks makes him look like a hero, regardless of its impact on the US. And if he gets any negative reaction from the American people, he could just blame it on Joe Biden.

It would not solve any of the geopolitical problems Iran poses to the region. However, the international community could do a much better job dealing with the fallout than Trump ever could. And they would be much more likely to step up and start working on the problems if the proverbial American bull left the Iranian china shop.

So for the good of the United States─or at least the least bad─please take my advice, Mr. President. That way, you can leave a legacy of being the victorious war President (in your own eyes). Maybe then you would even be worthy of grabbing someone else by the peace prize.

A collage of two photographs of President Trump snatching the FIFA Peace Prize and placing it on himself
FIFA Peace Prize

Perfect is the enemy of a good deal with Iran

The USA and five other world powers (the P5+1) have finally reached a deal with Iran regarding its use of nuclear power. Before the ink was even dry on the agreement, politicians here in the US began decrying it as a bad deal. Their complaints are consistently about the terms of the agreement not being strict enough.

For example, Iran agreed to limit enrichment of uranium to 3.5% but critics of the agreement do not want Iran to enrich uranium at all. Another example is Iran’s agreement to allow international inspectors to inspect a suspect site with 24 days’ notice. Critics want inspectors to have unfettered access with no advance notice. Essentially, critics of the agreement are saying that the terms of the agreement should be terms that would be perfect to them.

The problem with that position is that the critics of the agreement are not taking into account how negotiation works. Each side begins negotiating for their perfect terms knowing full well that the other side won’t agree to them. Then both sides begin making concessions on some terms to get concessions on other terms that are more important to the negotiating party. Eventually through this process of give and take, both parties reach an agreement with terms that are not perfect for either party but are somewhere in the middle of what both sides would consider perfect. Negotiations require compromise to be successful.

Critics of the Iran deal think that the deal should be evaluated as a choice between the terms that were agreed to and the perfect terms. But that’s unreasonable because Iran would never have agreed to the terms that would be perfect for the US. Instead, the deal should be evaluated as a choice between the terms that were agreed to and the status quo. The status quo is no deal at all.

Absent the agreement, Iran has no limits on the amount of enriched uranium it can possess and the degree to which it can enrich the uranium. Absent the agreement, Iran does not permit international inspectors to inspect any of its facilities, ever, regardless of how much notice is given. Critics of the agreement voice concerns about Iran being able to produce an atomic bomb in ten to fifteen years. Yet before the agreement was reached, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Iran was just about a year away from having an atomic bomb.

Evaluated from this perspective, the agreement with Iran is a good deal because the terms reached are far more restrictive on Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon than no deal at all. Considering that seven countries were involved in negotiations, the international community is lucky that any deal could be reached. To borrow an adage from Voltaire, we should not allow a perfect deal to be the enemy of a good deal with Iran.