The recent period has seen a flood of media op-eds and opinion articles regarding the recommended future American policy on the Iranian nuclear deal and Iranian threat.
The washingtonpost op-ed fights, unsurprisingly, for preserving the Iran nuclear deal as is. Although they themselves admit that they supported the deal “reluctantly” (due to the sunset clause which will remove most controls within a decade), and they even refer to the situation as a “risky bet”, their stance is still unchangeable. In addition, they do this while acknowledging that even since the deal Iran has aggressively pressed its bid for regional hegemony, bringing examples from Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the threats against US warships, ballistic missile development, cyberattacks & terrorism. All this, astonishingly, leads them to the contradictory conclusion that the nuclear deal should be upheld. Hey, didn’t the defenders of the deal promise that it will moderate Iran and make it friendlier??
The wsj, although consenting to the need for “additional pressure on specific issues”, still gave voice to the European hope that Trump will “stick to the deal”. To their credit, they do not conceal the motivation behind this viewpoint – “trade deal benefits”.
But there are other opinions. Those not seeking “trade deal benefits”, not willing to take “risky bets” with nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue state, clear eyed in face of the threats, have presented additional policy options.
Some have called for a policy of “countering Iran” (see nytimes and AP article in washingtonpost). The writer in the telegraph calls for a policy of “shunning Iran”. For the sake of defeating ISIL and bringing the Sunni camp on board, the writer states: “The Sunni-led regimes want to know that the US understands the threat posed by the Iranians. They are hoping that as President, he (Trump) will match tough actions with words to counter Iran’s threats in the Middle East”. Others promote a “crack-down” on business with Iran (see weeklystandard). Some (see meforum and the nytimes article) have dared to give voice to the call to abrogate or “Undo The Deal”, while others (see iranfocus) have called for a comprehensive regime change policy.
The “stick to the deal” advocates depreciate the regional aggression, the multiple threats and the Human Rights issue, focusing entirely on the near term nuclear issue. While conceding that the deal does not even prevent Iran from going nuclear, they are prepared to take a “risky bet”. They voice fears of what Iran might do. The “call for change” advocates seem to look at the long term “bigger picture”, taking regional and global threats into consideration. They see the importance of uniting with the Sunnis, and facing the threats head on. They focus on what Iran is doing.
Even if the Washington Post is prepared to take a “risky bet” on our lives, it doesn’t mean we have to!