The classical liberal/libertarian law and economics thinker is not on board. In fact, the title of his piece is: ‘Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal.’
As I see it, what much opposition to the Iran deal boils down to is this: The Iranian regime is full of people so untrustworthy that good faith dealing with them is nearly impossible, if not actually impossible. This was a supremely difficult task with a LOT of downside risk involved and opportunity costs to boot.
The Obama administration’s claim has heretofore been: It’s this deal or war. A kind of determined, defiant, activist peace-dealing has reigned, along with the usual political rhetoric and freezing-out of people who think differently.
Many people with dogs in the hunt are not on board with the deal. The major ones being a Republican-controlled Congress, many Americans keen to our security interests, a vast majority of Israelis, as well as most all of the Saudi kingdom (Sunni, oil-rich, and which funds its own Wahhabi terrorism, and which is right next door to its bitter foe).
The devil is in the details, and if the details don’t sufficiently address why a nuclear-armed Iran is so bad, why lifted sanctions empower a laundry-list of anti-American and anti-Western security interests (Putin especially, and the old Moscow-Tehran-Damascus alliance), Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists, destabilizing Shia militias and Revolutionary Guard activity, then the deal won’t achieve what it claims to be able to achieve.
The logic has pretty much remained the same and this is why I’m generally in the opposition: Short of maintaining sanctions, threats of force or other punishment, short of war or some other potential confrontation, the Iranian regime and many of its people will likely get deliverable nukes, and nearly no outcome of this fact will likely lead to greater peace, cooperation, and stability in a volatile region, nor in the world.
Pretty strong language out in the public square from Epstein:
‘This agreement does not require detailed study to conclude that it is a dead loser. Nonetheless, the United States has put it forward in the United Nations for approval before Congress has spoken, and the President, incorrigible as ever, has announced that he will veto any Congressional legislation that seeks to block the treaty. Many members of his own party do not share the President’s unfailing instinct for self-destruction. They should join the Republicans to reject the treaty by veto-proof majorities in both houses before the President and his team can do any further harm. ‘
Any thoughts and comments are welcome.
Feel free to highlight my ignorance.