As I've argued previously, no one is making rational arguments against the Iran deal based on our national interests. That's because from our perspective the deal is obviously better for us than the alternatives -- a nuclear-armed Iran or a war with Iran. But Josh Marshall explains why the alternatives might be better for Israel and Saudi Arabia:
But the most important thing about this perspective is that it elevates Israel's and Saudi Arabia's interests over our own. I understand why Israelis and the Saudis would put their interests first -- obviously they will, and they should -- but why would we put their interests first?
There are plenty of reasons why so many are responding so irrationally to the Iran deal, from partisan opposition to whatever Obama does to ingrained hatred of Iran to a childish misperception of American power. But way too many of us take our cues from Bibi Netanyahu, allowing the Israeli tail to wag the American dog. This is irrational, dangerous, and wrong.
The best argument against the nuclear deal is that it is better to keep Iran as a pariah state, with an abiding mutual hostility with the world's great power, the United States, and still enfeebled by US sanctions, even at the risk of Iran building a handful of nuclear weapons. For the way many Saudis see the world this isn't only the best argument, it's actually a decent argument. For the Israelis, it's considerably more complex. But there's some logic to it there as well. I certainly do not blame the Israelis for vastly preferring a world where Iran has zero nuclear weapons - let's not forget: THAT'S WHAT THIS DEAL DOES. But Israel's generals do not think Iran will launch an unprovoked first strike against Israel to bring on the end times. That's not Israel's real problem. Setting aside the abiding issue of the Palestinian conflict, Israel's real problem is that Iran subsidizes and arms proxy armies to Israel north and south. The situation with Hamas and Gaza is considerably more complex than that. But with Hezbollah it very much captures the situation. Hezbollah is a vastly more lethal force than anything Hamas has or can do in Gaza. In any case, it is obviously a complex reality. But the point is simple enough: a legitimized and wealthier Iran which does not change its behavior presents real challenges to all its neighbors.
From this perspective, a nuclear-armed Iran isn't the worst outcome (so disregard the Holocaust histrionics). Instead, the worst outcome is an Iran more empowered to be a bad actor in the region. We can handle that without too much trouble, but it's a much more substantial threat for Iran's neighbors.
But the most important thing about this perspective is that it elevates Israel's and Saudi Arabia's interests over our own. I understand why Israelis and the Saudis would put their interests first -- obviously they will, and they should -- but why would we put their interests first?
There are plenty of reasons why so many are responding so irrationally to the Iran deal, from partisan opposition to whatever Obama does to ingrained hatred of Iran to a childish misperception of American power. But way too many of us take our cues from Bibi Netanyahu, allowing the Israeli tail to wag the American dog. This is irrational, dangerous, and wrong.
