- 9 March 2012
-
- 0 Comments
-
-
-
- Congress, Diplomacy, Election 2012, US-Iran War
We’re at a rare moment in which both the United States and Iran have unclenched their fists and appear ready for real talks.
Obama, thankfully, has taken the pro-war crowd to task. The P5+1 are finally setting new negotiations for April. And Khamenei took the rare step of publicly welcoming new talks.
These are very hopeful signs that a breakthrough may be achievable. But we’ve seen how opportunities have been sabotaged in the past by political opportunism, ultimatums and intransigence that has demanded maximalist concessions from either side and blocked compromise and diplomatic progress.
So, the question is: which side’s hardliners will screw things up this time?
Enter Senators Graham, Casey and Lieberman. They recently introduced a resolution in the Senate that effectively says the U.S. will go to war if Iran acquires an undefined “capability” to build a nuclear weapon. They defended their stance in the Wall Street Journal this morning:
Some have asked why our resolution sets the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a “nuclear weapons capability,” rather than “nuclear weapons.” The reason is that all of the destabilizing consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran will ensue as soon as Iranians have the components necessary for a weapon—and by then, it will be too late to stop them.
When some say that our red line is a “nuclear weapon,” it suggests that anything short of a working bomb is acceptable. This is exactly the wrong message to send.
The Senators should ask themselves how such a demand is read in Iran. As Eugene Robinson explains in his column this morning, “The truth is that every nation with sufficient wealth and scientific infrastructure has the capacity to build a bomb if it really wants to.”
Does the Lieberman-Graham-Casey trifecta really think the Iranians will capitulate to an ultimatum that demands they never achieve economic or scientific progress? How do we sell that exactly?
