In my latest column for The American Conservative, I ask what opponents of an Iraq-like war against Iran will do if the president’s negotiations with Tehran fail.
It’s an especially important question for conservatives who want to avoid preventive war with Iran, since we lack confidence in both the military option and Barack Obama.
Just as we counsel others to be realistic about what we could actually accomplish by bombing Iranian enrichment facilities — much less invading and occupying a country bigger than Iraq — we need to be realistic about what we’re up against politically.
First, there is a bipartisan group of lawmakers who would like to blow up the negotiations (among other things). Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton has been quite explicit about this being a feature, not a bug, in the sanctions legislation he’s pushing. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez has been ramping up his criticism of the Obama administration on this issue.
Second, while Ted Cruz may be wrong about Iran policy, he’s not wrong when he says there are radical Islamic “nutcases” in the Iranian government. While hawks argue the Obama administration is selling out to these people, Iranian hardliners are actually making a deal less likely because they are insisting on concessions the United States and our allies will never agree to — including the immediate end to all sanctions.
Third, the Iranian ayatollahs have been on the American people’s radar screen as enemies since the 1979 hostage crisis. That’s a longer time than Saddam Hussein between the first Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, longer even than Muammar Gaddafi before Obama’s unconstitutional war with Libya. The public will be sympathetic to taking a hard line against the loathsome Iranian government, and while it may produce policies that are unwise, there are good reasons for that impulse.
Fourth, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have an inordinate faith in their ability to solve problems via their hot air. That faith has not always been well-placed. So there’s no guarantee their diplomacy will actually succeed.
Fifth, the Republican Party is ill-suited to deal with issues where U.S. and Israeli interests diverge. That’s because many conservative Republicans believe, as a matter of principle, that U.S. and Israeli interests effectively never diverge. This tendency is going to be on full display when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress in March. A nuclear Iran is a bigger threat to Israel than the United States. Iranian-funded terror also sometimes targets Israel.
I think tough international inspections are the best way to keep Iran from getting a bomb. That means successful diplomacy actually benefits Israel’s security. But I can understand why some Israelis might not want to take that risk.
Sixth, unlike Libya and Syria, Republican voices for peace — led, as usual, by Rand Paul — will be isolated. This is an issue where Paul loses Cruz and even Mike Lee. It will be difficult to make the case to the GOP’s conservative base that we should continue talking to Tehran.
That’s why a lot is riding on the alternative sanctions legislation Paul is working on with California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. It might not satisfy ideological purists, but it could be better than betting on Obama.
