|
Trending Topics
|
Taking the Deal or Opting for War: A False Dichotomy on Iran
(Washington Post) Frederick W. Kagan - President Obama has framed the debate over the Iran nuclear agreement as a choice between taking the deal or opting for war. He challenges critics to articulate an alternative to the deal, claiming that there isn't one. This is a superb debating technique, but it is a false dichotomy. The choice at hand is between accepting this deal now or continuing to press and negotiate for a better deal later. Many critics of this particular agreement, including me, believe that it would be far preferable to sign a good deal with Iran than to go to war with Iran - but also believe that this is a very bad deal indeed. There is historical precedent for thinking about the issue in this way. The Nixon administration signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I) in 1972, and the Senate ratified it. The agreement did not have the desired effect. The Soviet nuclear stockpile expanded dramatically and the period of detente supposedly ushered in by that agreement ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The Senate refused to ratify SALT II, ending the SALT process, but war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not ensue. Both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan instead increased the pressure on the Soviet Union dramatically. The lesson is that walking away from bad deals does not inevitably lead either to war or to the end of negotiations. Opposing the current deal is thus not in any way equivalent to favoring war. Nor is it a refusal to negotiate with Iran. Given how bad this deal is, opposing it is the only rational position to take. The writer, a former professor of military history at West Point, is director of the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute.