President Barack Obama says that 99 percent of the world supports his proposed nuclear deal with Iran. He had better check his math.
The most obvious problem with Obama's 99 percent figure is the strong American majority opposition to the proposed deal. A Quinnipiac poll released Monday showed that American voters oppose the plan by an almost 30 point margin, 57 percent to 28 percent. Almost identical numbers say that the plan will make the world less safe, not more. And a Pew poll in July showed little public confidence that Iran would live up to its side of the deal, or that international inspectors could enforce it.
The latest Quinnipiac poll also continues a downward slide in American approval of the president's handling of relations with Iran. In October 2013, the public approved of his policies by eight points, 48 percent to 40 percent. Now he is 21 points under water. Significantly, Obama has less support for his proposed Iran deal than President Jimmy Carter had for the ill-starred SALT II arms control agreement in the fall of 1979, a few months before he withdrew it from consideration by the Senate.
The proposed deal likewise has unified Israel's normally fractious polity in opposition. A July poll in the Jerusalem Post showed 69 percent opposition to only 10 percent support, and 74 percent believed the agreement would not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Of course, the White House would say this is to be expected. No doubt in Obama's mind Israelis are included in the supposed 1 percent who oppose the deal, along with, as he said, "well financed lobbyists," those "responsible for us getting into the Iraq war," and other thinly veiled references to the "Israel lobby."
However, Israel is not the only regional power opposing the deal. Egypt, whose relations with Washington are at low ebb, has not come out in favor of the deal and recently denounced Iran's growing influence in the region. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's former Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, wrote a damning column in July comparing the proposed agreement to the failed "Agreed Framework" deal under which North Korea stealthily developed a nuclear weapon. "Mr. Obama made his decision on the Iran nuclear deal aware that the strategic foreign policy analysis, the national intelligence information and intelligence from U.S. allies in the region predict a worse outcome than in North Korea," he wrote, "and Iran will have access to billions of dollars" from the so-called $150 billion in expected sanctions relief soon to be released to the Islamic Republic. He concludes that "this deal will wreak havoc in the Middle East," and says that it affirms the wisdom of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who said, "America's enemies should fear America, but America's friends should fear America more."
Some countries strongly support the deal, certainly, but do so for the wrong reasons. Russia wants to help Iran build its nuclear capacity and enhance its influence in the Gulf region. China wants access to more crude oil and better relations with Tehran. Both countries see Iran as a ready market for conventional weapons and missile technology.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has signaled his approval of the deal - but has said that it would not change Iran's policies towards the "arrogant" United States, would not alter Iran's defense posture or development of ballistic missiles, and would not even have an impact on Iran's nuclear weapons program, which he claims does not exist. "The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon," he said. "They know it's not true."
Yet regardless of which countries support or oppose the proposed deal, the question before the U.S. Congress is whether the agreement is in American interests. It clearly is not. The White House has attempted to manufacture a crisis, claiming that there is no alternative to its proposal except war. But violence was not imminent when the negotiations began, and those who oppose the deal are not promoting conflict as an alternative. Obama says that if the agreement is not implemented there will be nothing preventing Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. But there will still be the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has been in force in Iran since 1970, the punishing U.S. sanctions regime will be intact, and Tehran will know that if it moves openly towards nuclear capability the world would rally to stop it. In short, there is no current crisis, no urgent need to endorse a flawed agreement.
If Congress rejects the proposed deal, in other words, the day after will be much like the day before. Except, of course, that America's regional allies will fear Iran less, and trust Washington more.
Want these sent to your inbox?
Subscribe
