Washington Post: Three Main Critiques of Nuclear Negotiations

The Washington Post published an editorial on Thursday presenting the views of a wide range of American politicians regarding nuclear negotiations with Iran, which are critical of Barack Obama's administration's policies in this area. The critics of Obama's policies towards Iran include figures like Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State, to Timothy M. Kaine, Democratic Senator from Virginia. The Washington Post attempts to summarize the criticisms of the nuclear negotiations and identifies three main points. The newspaper writes: "While we have always supported negotiations with Iran and the interim agreement between the United States and its allies with Iran, we share many of these concerns and believe that further discussion is needed before the world is faced with a fait accompli." The first point of criticism mentioned by the Washington Post is the acceptance of a nuclear Iran, stating: "The process [of negotiations] that began with the aim of eliminating Iran's potential to produce nuclear weapons has transformed into a plan to accommodate Iran and limit its capabilities." The second point of criticism relates to Iran's role in regional developments, which the Washington Post describes as follows: "The Obama administration has refrained from addressing Iran's aggressive actions aimed at expanding its influence throughout the Middle East and seems prepared to recognize Iran's position as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies." Finally, the newspaper writes: "The Obama administration conveys the message that it seeks to implement any agreement with Iran – an agreement that includes the suspension of sanctions that Congress has essentially approved – without feeling the need for a vote from either chamber [of Congress]. In fact, an agreement with long-lasting implications for U.S. national security and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is being approved by a president who has less than two years left in his term." The Washington Post then notes that Henry Kissinger recently raised the first point of criticism in a meeting with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. According to Mr. Kissinger, the nuclear negotiations with Iran began as multilateral talks led by the European Union and six UN Security Council countries aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring the capability to produce nuclear weapons, but "these negotiations have now effectively turned into bilateral negotiations" between the United States and Iran "about the scope of Iran's nuclear capabilities, not its existence." Mr. Kissinger then warned that if the U.S. reaches an agreement with such an approach, other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, will inevitably compare themselves to Iran and seek to acquire the same nuclear capabilities. Iran and the U.S. have held numerous bilateral meetings at the level of foreign ministers and their deputies in recent months, which have also faced criticism from some conservatives in Iran. On the other hand, domestic critics of Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran, have accused him of retreating from what they call Iran's nuclear rights. The Washington Post's editorial continues by stating that the Obama administration has emphasized the distinction between nuclear negotiations and "Iran's support for terrorism." According to the newspaper, Iran seeks to dominate Arab countries in the Middle East and, as it has stated, aims to eliminate Israel. However, Barack Obama, in the midst of negotiations, assures Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, that the two countries have common interests in the region, and the White House refrains from any action that Iran would perceive as hostile, including support for military action against Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria. The Washington Post then quotes Senator Timothy Kaine, who states that Iran is currently engaged in actions to destabilize the governments of U.S. allies from Bahrain to Morocco. The newspaper notes that, unlike all previous U.S. presidents since 1979 who opposed Iran's dominance in the region, Mr. Obama seems prepared to grant Iran a position in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond, a policy that has raised alarm bells among U.S. allies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. Recently, however, Ashton Carter, the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Defense, who enjoys broad support from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, has described Iran as a "dangerous threat" to the U.S., equating it with the Islamic State group. According to Foreign Policy, Mr. Carter believes that Iran's nuclear program should be addressed using a comprehensive strategy that integrates diplomatic, economic, and military tools, and has consistently stated since 2008 that military action should be considered part of an overall strategy rather than a separate option. Finally, the Washington Post refers to the disagreements between the Obama administration and Congress, stating that while presidents set U.S. foreign policy, significant changes must necessarily have the support of Congress and the country, or they will not endure. Barack Obama has previously warned that if Congress votes to intensify sanctions on Iran while negotiations are ongoing, he will veto it. The President has emphasized that undermining diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute at this critical juncture is a mistake. The Washington Post's editorial concludes by stating that this unilateral move by Mr. Obama will even displease his most important supporters in Congress, which means that an agreement with Iran could be revoked within months of the next U.S. president taking office.