Oh, it goes back further than that, to the CIA’s overthrow of their elected leader, Mossadegh, in 1951 and reinstallation of the Pahlavi regime. Gotta keep the oil supply secure under Anglo-American control, yanno.
Not to mention US support for the invasion and occupation of Iran in WW2. Why do you think the conference of 1943 was in Tehran?
It’s the only place Stalin would agree to meet that wasn’t within the boundaries for the Soviet Union.
Then, there was the whole Iran/Iraq war. Granted, this was a mess and was not a result of US actions in the region (unless you ascribe the rise of the Islamic state in Iran to the US support of the Shah of Iran), but we did heavily support Iraq through the whole period including internal groups like the MEK.
What is harder? Dealing with a paranoid, or being one?
I honestly don’t know if I’m remembering this correctly, but wasn’t the right wing contingent against the sanctions in the first place?
No, it’s worse than that; they are promising to unilaterally repudiate it on day one of the next Republican presidency after Iran, the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany have all agreed to it.
That was more the British and the Soviets, but yeah, that was the first time the Shah took power due to a western-backed coup.
With enough AIPAC pressure it can be repudiated well before Obama leaves office.
And then what?
There won’t be any negotiations after the U.S. scuttles the agreement. The other parties probably will lose patience with American petulence and who knows if they will continue sanctions; probably not. Iran will come out looking like one of the countries that kept its word in the negotiations, as opposed to the U.S.
What is the Plan B? No opponent of the deal has come up with an even halfway realistic scenario. It’s always, “We should negotiate harder and get Iran to totally capitulate!” Either that, or we go to war. Those are not real options.
What we should have done is continue current policies, which had kept Iran from a bomb. But you do make a good point, our allies are lifting their sanctions. And as I said before, I doubt those sanctions are going back even if Iran reneges.
That all comes down to how much Congress can do about it. No AIPAC pressure is going to sway the Administration on this.
It’s more likely *we *will renege, innit?
Our current policies made it painful for Iran to pursue a bomb, but until the recent potential diplomatic breakthrough they did not prevent Iran from getting closer to a bomb. Hence the increase in centrifuges from something like 160 in 2003 to 22,000 today. Even if the existing sanctions could remain in place indefinitely, I don’t see how those prevent Iran from getting a bomb, unless they led to the collapse of the regime (not bloody likely).
As others have said, the international sanctions regime that has been so effective against Iran doesn’t have time on its side. Peter Beinart goes into this point at length:
We can’t renege. ONly the President has made a deal. Congress makes the laws in this country and can continue to legislate against Iran. If you don’t want them to do that, then they need to approve a treaty, which would then become law. Absent a treaty, it’s not binding law.
Use any word you like: renege, tank the agreement, blow up the talks, stand up for Netanyahu, strike a blow for war and justice: it all means that the deal negotiated by all the world’s leading powers doesn’t move forward because of the US.
Better explain that to Walker and Cruz.
Tell us more about rogue nations and reliable negotiating partners and reneging. The subject seems fascinating.
Well, we are a nation of laws, and Presidents can’t make binding law. That’s Congress’ prerogative. So any nation negotiating with us knows that any agreement they make is dependent on Congress’ consent. Since so many of you made fun of Iran lecturing us about our system of government, I guess we can assume that Iran and our allies already know that Congress has not agreed to anything and does in fact have the power to say no if they want to. And it’s not “reneging” because they never agreed to this deal.
Are we the only country on our negotiating side that has a legislative hurdle to pass in order to ratify this agreement?
And what about Iran? Is their agreement binding with The Supreme Leader?
Not trying to be snarky or anything. Honest questions. People tend to focus on the US as if we were the only player.
You are missing my point entirely.
Use any term you find comforting - let us say that the “US fails to ratify the agreement” - a excessively generous term for the congressional review that may occur. Everyone on Planet Earth is going to blame the United States for the deal not moving forward. Yes, it may be blocked due to our own constitutional processes. Yes, it may be fully legal that the agreement be blocked by the Congress. But in the end, all countries are unitary actors on the international stage, and it will be this country that fingers will point at for a deal not being achieved.
You can say that other countries need to know the role of Congress, but the negotiation and application of agreements is primarily a unitary, national responsibility in the eyes of everyone else. It’s like if you win a contract from Corporation ABC, and the board of directors or partners then cancels the award. Sure, they can do that, but you’re still probably going to be pissed for acting in good faith only to have ABC not reciprocate.