From Time World Magazine:
Some details at the link:
‘For the moment, diplomacy and dialogue have won the day, but the talks will have to continue — and trust between Iran and its Western interlocutors will have to deepen — before a lasting deal can be reached.’
There’s a kind of ‘upper middle-brow’ liberal secular-humanist worldview being appealed to in the article, I suspect. It has some truths to point out.
There was heavy use of back-channels in the Iran deal, meaning some people on both sides were sticking their necks out pretty far. Often, this is how the best diplomacy happens. There was a rare window with the election of Hassan Rouhani and the departure of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to make something happen. Not all Iranians, after all, like living under a repressive, thugocratic Islamic regime and many took serious risks to express their discontent during the 2011-2012 election protests. This is an accomplishment as there were few if any possibilities short of a very risky war or a ratcheting-up and potential escalation of those sanctions and rhetoric likely leading to intervention and/or war.
We’ve now sacrificed the sanctions that took over a decade to enforce and maintain. We’ve freed up the Iranian economy in exchange for an iffy first-step in a tentative deal. We’ve got an idealistic, weakened leader searching for his legacy while ignoring other unresolved crises (Syria especially) around the Middle-East. We’re pulling out of the region without full consideration of our interests, objectives and potential consequences.
We aren’t building coalitions both at home and abroad robust enough to achieve those objectives, even if they are aiming for this peace deal.
Iran will likely continue pursuing regional domination, which will include all manner of nastiness and violation of international norms and law while destabilizing and undermining the interests of the West and most of the rest of the region. Many people in Iran who control the deep State can be assumed to have no real intention of stopping enrichment either.
So what are our interests and how do we secure them as the fires in the Middle-East rage? Michael Totten makes a case here in Why We Can’t Leave The Middle-East.’ He gets push-back in the comments