Diplomacy: Parallel Arguments, Different Conclusions

What is so striking about listening to US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argue for or against the Iranian nuclear agreement is the degree to which their arguments are parallel.

Both men say the goal is to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb; both men say they want to prevent nuclear proliferation in the area; both men say the issue is so important that they must speak out, even if it causes friction with their great ally.

… 

Mark Dubowitz, the executive director for the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a fierce opponent of the agreement, told a delegation of Israeli diplomatic reporters visiting Washington last week that some 80 senators – well above the 67 needed to override a presidential veto – would vote down the accord if it were not for politics.

But, Dubowitz said, an initial vote against the deal would constitute a vote of no confidence, with wide-ranging ramifications.

First of all, he said, the public should not be fooled by European leaders falling over themselves to visit Iran. Most companies, including most European companies, will not rush back into Iran right away, but rather wait and see how things develop. They will wait to see who is the next president, whether he or she will honor the accord or roll it back, and will want to see if all the US sanctions are indeed lifted.

These companies, he said, would not want to risk losing business with US companies in the event that sanctions are kept in place.

They will not want to make economic commitments to Iran that they may then have to scuttle.

… 

Read the full article here.