A Foreign Policy of Capitulation: Iran Deal and Chattanooga

Like everyone else, I watched the coverge of the Chattanooga shooting yesterday in horror and, frankly, disgust. Sen. Frank Nicely sums up why the latter:

No, next question. They are called #ArmedServices for a reason. https://t.co/Ts77fFkevk

— Sen. Frank Niceley (@SenFrankNiceley) July 17, 2015

It really does require some acceptance of twisted logic to make that work, right? And since I’ve been trying to write about the recent Iran Deal, it got me to thinking:

Since when is capitulation a reasonable foreign policy strategy?

Andrew McCarthy explains why there is no way to see the recent deal struck in Vienna as anything but a sort of white-flag surrender to an enemy that shows no inclination toward friendship with the US or her allies.

Iran has built its foreign policy around the goal of “Death to America” for the last 36 years. It continues, unabashed, to be the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism — in particular, anti-American terrorism. It has killed and abetted the killing of Americans throughout the current regime’s existence. It is a totalitarian sharia state that, at this moment, is imprisoning at least three Americans. One of them, Saeed Abedini, has been sentenced to eight years’ incarceration for establishing Christian houses of worship, which the regime says is a threat to national security. The regime, further, has repeatedly vowed to exterminate Israel, our close ally and the only true democracy in the region. With such a rogue state, there is only one negotiation a sensible nation — particularly the world’s most powerful nation — can have. You tell them that until they convincingly disavow their anti-American stance, cease their support for terrorism, release American prisoners, and acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, that there is no point in discussing anything else.

So, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why we did this. (note: I have read the thing. It’s detailed and depressing. Literally, it reads like an apology to Iran for all the mean stuff the world thinks about them. Truly bizarre.) I like to believe there’s some kind of strategy where the US gains…well, anything. If the goal is to convince Iran that we have their interests at heart so they’ll stop wanting to kill us, I’m fairly certain this tactic won’t work. Lions don’t respect the sheep that wander into their dens. They eat them.

Personally, I think a version of what Michael Rubin suggests was probably the way to go.

Obama is wrong. Coercion can work; indeed, it is an important part of strategy, and he and his aides are naïve to believe otherwise. The president and Secretary of State John Kerry may brag that he got the international community behind him, but he ignores that George W. Bush achieved multiple unanimous or near unanimous UN Security Council resolutions demanding Iran come clean on its past work and address its violations of its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement.

Did Iran’s nuclear program expand because of Bush’s coercion? That claim is nonsense. Between 2000 and 2005, the European Union almost tripled its trade with Iran, and the price of oil doubled. Iran took that hard currency windfall and invested it almost exclusively in its covert nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The Supreme National Security Council chairman guiding that strategy? None other than Hassan Rouhani. In short, the problem was not too little diplomacy but rather too much.

The question for Congress, then, is if they want a better deal, what would be the figurative equivalent of forcing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to drink from a chalice of poison? True, there were more options two years ago before Obama willfully forfeited leverage. Iran’s economy was vulnerable and had declined 5.4% in the year prior to the start of negotiations. It might be so again. One thing is clear, however: Giving Iran an $100 billion infusion isn’t the answer.

It’s at least smarter. Much like arming those Marines in Chattanooga is probably a smarter move than having them behind glass, in a small room, facing a parking lot, unarmed.

It’s looking like our foreign policy strategy is to appear nice, possibly weak, but not smart. And that’s terrifying.