What now?
The Iran deal will stand, at least until the next presidential election. Despite disapproval by a non-partisan majority of both houses of Congress, not to mention the American people, because of the incredibly low threshold to sustain a veto, not to mention White House arm-twisting and purely partisan support, the deal will stand.
What now?
Now that we've evidently achieved nuclear peace in our time with Iran, we can finally focus on the little things like, you know, the Iranian regime's brutal oppression of gays, other minorities and women, the Iranian regime's proxy support for regional terrorist groups, as well as the Iranian regime's openly stated goal of annihilating Israel and the Jews.
So what now?
According to the Obama administration, the deal wasn't meant to address those other issues; all options, according to the administration, would remain on the table in dealing with the Iranian regime's non-nuclear misdeeds.
Oh, really?
The deal provides that the current sanctions won't be lifted until Iran has fully complied with the deal. Once approved, that could take place within a year. In addition to all the frozen funds Iran will gain access to - which by some calculations could produce a windfall of $100 billion or more - the deal allows Iran to sell petroleum on the open market and to do business with countries around the world. It's a corporatist's dream come true, and the Iranians are already making overtures to businesses around the world. As an Iranian representative in Sweden crowed over a month ago, "The Iran deal gives big business opportunities (for Swedish corporations)."
There is a certain irony, of course, in that some of those who vocally supported a boycott of the Beverly Hills Hotel because of its connections with Brunei, which instituted laws which would subject gays to death, are among the most vocal supporters of a deal which lifts sanctions with Iran, which already has laws subjecting gays to death. Indeed, there is a slight difference between Iran and Brunei: Brunei has never actually had any anti-gay executions; Iran has.
When the City of Beverly Hills decided to divest from Iran several years ago, a policy I continue to support, it had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions. It had everything to do with Iran's human rights record, including its treatment of gays and women, and its open anti-Semitism, among other misdeeds. We have no intention of changing our policy, nor is there any reason to do so.
Those who support the Iran deal now need to answer the simple question: what do we now do about human rights in Iran? What do we now do about continued Iranian support for regional terrorist groups? What do we now do about continued Iranian threats against Israel and the Jews?
Let's remember, we're talking about an Iran which will have significantly increased resources and which even the president himself admits will likely use some of those resources to increase support for regional terror groups.
Some might suggest that we can counter the increase in Iran's terrorist funding by beefing up the defensive capabilities of our mid-East allies, including Israel. That would certainly make it seem like we would be fomenting and encouraging a regional arms race. "Ah, but at least it's a conventional arms race and not a nuclear one," would likely be the response of the deal's supporters. Maybe. But on the other hand even crazy countries like North Korea don't seem to be so crazy that they're not careful about using nukes. There will likely be no such caution or restraint for Iran's terrorist buddies when it comes to using more and more expensive conventional arms.
But even if one can accept that increased military support for Israel and America's other mid-East allies would create a balance of power to counter a resurgent, well-financed Iran, what do we do about Iran's human rights violations?
A boycott? Economic sanctions?
Isn't that what many, including members of groups like MoveOn were calling for when it came to Brunei's abhorrent stance on gays? Shouldn't they support increased sanctions on Iran, which hasn't just threatened to execute gays, but which has actually done so? And yet MoveOn is among the most strident in its pro-deal efforts to lift the Iranian sanctions and allow corporations from around the world to make some fast money with an Iranian regime which has been cut off from the mainstream world economy for years.
The idea of "snapback sanctions" in the event of an Iranian breach of the agreement on nuclear issues is improbable enough. We are clearly not going to lift sanctions as a part of the nuclear deal, and then re-impose sanctions in an attempt to punish the Iranian regime for human rights violations, including its ongoing brutal oppression of gays and other minority groups.
Ironically, MoveOn is thus advocating for open trade with the Iranian regime and promoting a corporatist agenda, while at the same time they are fighting free trade with a number of Asian-Pacific countries. One of the arguments they are using to fight the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which I personally oppose for a variety of reasons) is - you got it - human rights violations in Brunei.
Deal supporters will tell you that the deal was never meant to address Iran's human rights violations; one of the main pitfalls of this non-comprehensive deal is that it leaves us with no effective way to do so. The multitude of perils inherent in a non-comprehensive deal with Iran is something I have pointed out before.
And that doesn't even include the poor results of a bad nuclear negotiation, namely the fact that the deal will leave Iran in a plum position to get its very own nukes at the end of ten years. Deal supporters may quote former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy that ten years is an "eternity" in the mid-East in the hope that much might change in the region during that period. Hope so. But that seems extremely pollyannish. I would argue that we would be wiser to listen to the wisdom of Alphonse Karr and/or Carlos Gardel.
And so we are faced with a deal which will stand for now. And even if it eventually chooses to break the deal, the Iranian regime will be better off than if it had not signed the deal at all. It will have received billions of dollars in funds and resources and will have entered into a slew of business arrangements which would continue even if "snapback" sanctions were instituted under the terms of a violation.
Great deal for Iran.
But what about for those who will suffer even more because of what the deal will bring an Iranian regime, which is expected to increase its sponsorship of terrorism and its suppression of human rights? What about gays, other minorities and women under the Iranian regime?
What now?