Letter to Congress re Iran Nuclear Deal

I am writing to urge you to approve the agreement among the United States, Iran, Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China and the EU, under which Iran agrees to restrain its nuclear program in return for the relaxation of economic sanctions against Iran.

This agreement significantly restricts Iran’s nuclear program and will make it more difficult for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, which it was already prohibited from doing by its membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  The NPT allows members to develop nuclear energy in almost any way as long as it is not used for military or explosive purposes.  Nuclear energy, scientific research and medical activities are all allowed, along with the infrastructure to support those activities.  Iran has agreed to much stricter controls on its program.  Its current program will become much smaller and less threatening, with less nuclear material, less enrichment capability and less plutonium production capability.  It has agreed to a more intrusive inspection regime than that usually applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  I am sure that in addition, the US will use its own “National Technical Means” of verification like that it has used to monitor nuclear agreements with the Soviet Union and Russia, and to monitor the activities of rogue nuclear countries such as Pakistan and North Korea. 

For me, however, the main argument in favor of the agreement is the lack of a better alternative.  Without this agreement Iran would only be bound by the much less restrictive verification measures applied to NPT members, measures that already applied to Iran without this deal.  If this agreement had not been finalized, the other partners in our sanctions regime against Iran would probably have dropped out, leaving us with a much weaker regime.  The only non-diplomatic option that I see would be a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or perhaps a more generalized attack on the nation itself, like our earlier invasions of its eastern and western neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan.  I don’t support such an attack, and I think that most Americans are weary of war in that region.  It’s possible that the agreement could have been stronger, eliminating more of Iran’s centrifuges, for example, but this agreement is strong, and more delay might have alienated our partners as well as the Iranians, possibly jeopardizing any deal at all.  The best is often the enemy of the good. 

Therefore, I urge you to support the agreement. 

As background, I am a retired Foreign Service officer who spent ten or more years of my career working on nuclear non-proliferation issues.  I spent most of my time working on the South American nuclear rivalry between Argentina and Brazil in the 1970s and 1980s.  At times this competition seemed to be following the course of Pakistan and India, but I was pleased that in the 1980s while I was serving as science officer at the American Embassy in Brasilia with responsibility for nuclear issues, Brazil and Argentina agreed to end their nuclear competition.  It took some time, but in the 1990s both countries joined the NPT.  While working on non-proliferation issues, I often crossed paths with other people working on the issue, such as Richard Clarke, Robert Gallucci, Charles Duelfer, and Gary Samore.  I have been retired for almost twenty years, but I remain interested in these issues and continue to follow them. 

I was motivated to write this letter by President Obama’s request on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” that ordinary Americans do so.  I agree with the President and Secretary of State Kerry that this agreement is good for the US, and for the world, including Israel and the Sunni Arab countries. 

Military Leaders

I am very disappointed that none of the ten Republican presidential candidates who appeared in the main Fox debate were veterans.  At least two of the candidates in the earlier kids’ debate were veterans – Rick Perry and Lindsey Graham.  This is due to changes in priorities in the US which have affected both the military and politics.  Twenty-six of our forty-four Presidents have served in the military.  This includes George W. Bush, whom I don’t include because he avoided service in Vietnam by joining the Alabama National Guard.  In the past, men who wanted to serve their country politically would often want to serve in other ways, such as defending it in the military.  When I was growing up, almost every man who could pass the physical had served in some military capacity during World War II.  The big change in attitude came during the Vietnam War, when the military became an object or derision, and the draft was eliminated. 

Before the elimination of the draft, the military was a rather democratic institution with people from across the US, socially, racially, financially, etc.  When the draft was eliminated, men from good families served much less than those from lower classes.  The military particularly drew from lower class white men, rednecks, to whom the military still appealed as a patriotic calling, and one that was financially as good as or better than any occupation they could find in the civilian sector.  It also took in many blacks and Hispanics, who had less family connection to the military and who were thus attracted mainly by the financial aspects rather than by patriotism. In any case, we have less diversity in the military and fewer veterans in most segments of civilian society.   

One example of the elite’s contempt for the military is the fact that while she was dean of the Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan blocked military recruiters from using the school’s office of career services to talk to prospective recruits.  Harvard is not a hotbed of students seeking to serve their country; they are too interested in getting rich on Wall Street.  Harvard is producing brilliant, selfish, greedy narcissists.  It’s an example of how America’s economy is doing well while its moral structure crumbles. 

Traditionally the military has represented some of the best qualities of America and its citizens, but as the pool of military recruits shrinks, it has fewer high class individuals to draw from.  There are of course many fine people serving in the military, but there is a higher proportion of people who are not so fine. 

As a result, the military has fewer leaders to offer to the American political system.  Colin Powell was one who served in many important positions, but who never ran for public office.  In this respect, he copied General George Marshall, one of the finest men ever to serve in the military, but who also refused to run for office, leaving the field to General Eisenhower.  Eisenhower is the last military leader to follow in the footsteps of General George Washington.  Other Presidents, like Kennedy, Nixon, and Carter, served in the military, but did not distinguish themselves as military leaders.  Eisenhower was primarily a soldier who also entered politics.  Kennedy and his cohorts were politicians who had served in the military.  Kerry and McCain fall in the latter category.

McCain is rightly characterized as a hero for his actions while a prisoner of war.  However, he was not a great military leader.  His father and grandfather were military leaders, but they did not go into politics.  McCain did not succeed in the military as his ancestors had.  Neither McCain nor Kerry carried the mantle of “great military leader” into their failed campaigns for President.  There is no military leader today with any claim to that title.  Even Colin Powell’s military success came mainly as a staff officer, not a line officer commanding troops in combat.  The closest probably has been General Petraeus, for his successful surge campaign toward the end of the Iraq war.  Unfortunately, his political chances have been undermined by his immoral personal life.  In any case, his success in Iraq pales beside the accomplishments of previous military Presidents like Washington and Eisenhower.  McCain’s and Kerry’s military accomplishments don’t even deserve comparison to those predecessors. 

I think America is poorer for not having a military cadre to draw from for political office.  Generals don’t only fight.  Marshall was known in WW II as “the great organizer.”  We could use a great organizer, or just someone who inspires confidence in their leadership.  Reagan did inspire people, and I think that is why the Republicans look up to him so, although many of his so-called accomplishments have paled in the light of history.  Obama, on the other hand, may have more lasting accomplishments, but he generally fails to inspire the confidence of American citizens, or the respect of his international cohorts. 

The Iran Nuclear Deal and Jewish Politicians

Senator Schumer’s decision to go against a Democratic President and oppose the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by former Senator John Kerry, whose father was Jewish, raises questions about the loyalty of some Jews to the United States.  Schumer is joined in opposition by Representative Steve Israel, the most senior Jewish Democrat in the House.  Do they oppose the deal because it is bad for the US, or because Bibi Netanyahu says it is bad for Israel?  Do they believe that Netanyahu is smarter than Obama, or that Israel’s survival is more important than America’s?  They have very Jewish constituencies and may be representing their constituents’ interests, but that would raise the broader question of whether Jews in general are more loyal to Israel than to the US. 

On the other hand, Jewish Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Sander Levin have said that they will support the Iran agreement, making it clear that Jews are not a monolithic group any more than Christians, blacks, or any other ethnic or religious group.  But there are deep undertones of racial and religious bias, highlighted first by Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to give a speech to the Congress that vehemently attacked President Obama.  The fact that a foreign country that calls itself a Jewish nation has become so deeply involved in American politics illustrates the extreme involvement of Jewish interests.  Presidential candidate Huckabee, a Christian, joined in by likening the agreement to the beginning of the World War II Holocaust.  Speaker Boehner’s actions have also inserted greater ethnic, religious tensions into this debate. 

In addition there are dueling Jewish lobbies, AIPAC and J-Street.  AIPAC supports Bibi Netanyahu and the right-wing, hawkish, Likud party, while J-Street supports more liberal, less hawkish Jews.  Israel seems to be somewhat evenly split between hawks and doves, but AIPAC is much stronger in the US than J-Street.  In addition, many Gentile politicians, like Huckabee, support AIPAC, some out of principle, many because AIPAC contributes so much money to political campaigns.  In addition to AIPAC, billionaire Sheldon Adelson has contributed millions to politicians who support Israel’s hawkish views. 

The NYT reports that Obama has been angered by the AIPAC onslaught against the Iran deal, often making arguments that do not portray the deal correctly.  I think Obama has been remarkable in dealing with religious prejudice.  When he was campaigning for President the first time, Christians attacked him for the Christian church he attended.  He basically gave up his church because of a few inflammatory things his pastor had said.  I was appalled that Christians would drive a Christian out of a Christian church, but they did.  Now, the Jews have launched a full scale attack on him.  He is replying by making factual arguments, not resorting to ad hominem attacks.  The Jews seem confident that they can withstand any attacks by waving the Holocaust card, and perhaps they can. 

To me it seems ironic that, while the Iran nuclear deal will benefit the whole world, the biggest beneficiary may well be Israel, if indeed Israel is at the top of list of countries that Iran would like to attack.  The deal makes it much less likely that Israel will be attacked with a nuclear weapon.  It gives Israel and the rest of the world a ten year cushion to figure out what to do next.  

Senate Testimony on Iran Deal

Tempers are flaring over the Iran nuclear deal.  On C-Span, I watched some of the testimony by State Under Secretary Sherman and Treasury Under Secretary Szubin before the Senate banking committee, and the Senators I watched were not very polite, even the Democrats.  It looks like the Senators want to kill some Iranians’ they want the streets of Tehran to run red with blood.  I was appalled.  These are the same senators who have basically approved Israel’s and India’s nuclear weapons program.  And they have done little but complain about Pakistan’s and North Korea’s bombs.  This is a strange country and Congress is a strange institution.  We have already invaded two of Iran’s next door neighbors, Afghanistan and Iraq; do they just want to drop one huge, multi-megaton atomic bomb and destroy all three countries at one time? 

Meanwhile, on the PBS Newshour, Ray Takeyh and Nicholas Burns debated the effectiveness of Obama’s speech.  Takeyh thought Obama had utterly failed, and Burns did not do very well defending Obama.  Takeyh complained that the agreement will expire in ten or fifteen years, and then Iran can build a bomb, glossing over the fact that in ten or fifteen years Iran will stand exactly where it stands today without the deal.  It will still be a member of the NPT, which says that it cannot build a bomb.  He said that the negotiated deal was bad and that the US should go back and renegotiate it.  When asked if it would not be hard to drag the other parties, including Russia and China, back to the table, he said it would be hard but not impossible. 

What he failed to say, and what no opponent has said that I have heard, is that the deal will give the next President, or Israel, or the UN, or whoever, at least ten years to negotiate a new deal or extend this one.  The attitude seems to be that Kerry is a lousy negotiator, but the Republicans have no one who can negotiate anything better in ten years.  This is probably true, because Ronald Reagan is dead, and he was the only Republican who seemed able to negotiate any kind of arms control agreement.  Colin Powell has basically become a Democrat, because the Republican Party has become some kind of an insane asylum.  It turns out that Condi Rice plays the piano much better than she can negotiate treaties.  No wonder Donald Trump is doing so well.  “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”  The Republicans know they are so stupid that they cannot even understand this nuclear agreement, much less negotiate anything better. 

Another aspect of this that is very odd to me is that many of the negotiators and defenders of the Iran deal are Jewish, while Israel’s allies in trying to kill it are good ol’ Christian white boys.  Those most conflicted over the agreement are Jewish Democrats like Chuck Schumer.  Do they go with Israel, or with the President’s Democratic Party?  They may well determine whether the Senate can override the President’s veto of the bill rejecting the Iran agreement.  John Kerry’s father was Jewish, although he claimed to be Irish.  Wendy Sherman is Jewish, according to Wikipedia.  Her Treasury colleague today, Adam Szubin, appears to be Jewish.  They were grilled, and I thought mistreated, by some angry, white senators from some agricultural states, who apparently know more about cotton and corn than about nuclear energy or international agreements.