Those whom the gods will destroy they first make mad. Critics of Barack Obama’s Iran dealhave been giving a good impression of having lost the plot. An Israeli cabinet ministerdescribed it as “one of the darkest days in world history”. Republicans liken Mr Obama to NevilleChamberlain. All agree that a deal that removes about two-thirds of Iran’s nuclear capabilityand freezes the rest will somehow hasten the day it has the bomb. In the next two months,before Capitol Hill votes on it, we will hear a lot more such bombast. It comes down to whetherCongress believes Iran is capable of acting rationally or whether it is a uniquely malevolentcountry that has outfoxed America and its partners in the negotiating chamber.
The chances are that Mr Obama’s deal will prevail. He needs the veto-proof support of just athird of each chamber — 34 senators and 145 in the House of Representatives. Even then,however, it is no sure bet. In the next 60 days it will face the onslaught of Israel, Saudi Arabia,and every Republican presidential hopeful. In addition to viewing Iran in an apocalyptic light,each has further motives for wishing to sink the deal.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, the logic is simple. Iran is Saudi Arabia’s chief competitor thatclaims to speak for the region’s Shia minority, a large chunk of which lives in Saudi Arabia’s oil-rich east. In a sectarian zero-sum game, anything that boosts Iran is bad.
Israel’s opposition is also straightforward. As the region’s only nuclear weapons state —albeit an undeclared one — it wants to keep its monopoly. The fact that the deal would setback Iran’s breakout capacity from two months to a year is false comfort, say the Israelis. Bybringing a pariah state in from the cold, it will perversely raise the chances Iran eventually goesnuclear.
Finally, Republicans see Mr Obama as a feckless president who is jeopardising US power simplyby talking to a terrorist state. The quality of the deal is irrelevant. Nothing short of regimechange will do. Some of these motives overlap. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeliprime minister, shares the Republican party’s personal animus towards Mr Obama. What unitesthem is a refusal to see Iran as capable of change.
Mr Obama has taken the opposite tack. A realistic negotiator puts himself into his adversary’sshoes. The starting point on Iran is that its desire to go nuclear is entirely rational. US-ledcoalitions have invaded two of Iran’s direct neighbours, Iraq and Afghanistan in the past 15years. American troops are still there. As a rule, the US does not invade countries that havenuclear weapons. Moreover, the US labelled Iran part of the “axis of evil” in 2002, at a timewhen Tehran wanted to help the US in Afghanistan, where they shared enmity with the Taliban(as they still do). Mohammad Khatami, the moderate cleric who was then Iran’s president, hadalso signalled a nuclear deal was possible. Had President George W Bush responded, a farbetter one would have been available. Instead, he branded Iran evil. Unsurprisingly, Tehranstepped up its clandestine efforts.
奧巴馬卻采取不同的策略。一名務(wù)實(shí)的談判者善于從對手的視角看待問題。伊朗問題的起點(diǎn)是,該國發(fā)展核武器的想法是完全理性的。在過去15年里,以美國為首的盟國入侵了伊朗的兩個(gè)近鄰——伊拉克和阿富汗。美軍部隊(duì)現(xiàn)在仍駐扎在這兩個(gè)國家。一般說來,美國不會入侵擁有核武器的國家。此外,2002年正當(dāng)?shù)潞谔m希望在阿富汗幫助美國之際——伊朗也對塔利班抱有敵意(現(xiàn)在仍是如此)——美國卻將伊朗貼上“邪惡軸心”的標(biāo)簽。時(shí)任伊朗總統(tǒng)的溫和派神職人員穆罕默德哈塔米(Mohammad Khatami)也暗示稱,有可能簽署核協(xié)議。如果當(dāng)時(shí)美國總統(tǒng)喬治·W·布什(George W Bush)做出回應(yīng),將會得到一份比現(xiàn)在好得多的協(xié)議。結(jié)果布什卻將伊朗歸入邪惡國家之列。并不令人意外的是,德黑蘭加快了其秘密研發(fā)核武器的努力。
Second, Iran’s decision to mothball its nuclear ambitions in exchange for economic relief isalso rational. It is unlikely to give up on it lightly. It followed a decade’s worth of US-ledsanctions that has brought the country’s economy to its knees. The regime of Ayatollah AliKhamenei, supreme leader, clearly thinks it will help its chances of survival.
其次,伊朗決定擱置核野心以換取經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁的解除也是理性的。伊朗不太可能輕易放棄自己的核計(jì)劃。它采取此舉之前,以美國為首的國際社會實(shí)施了10年制裁,令伊朗經(jīng)濟(jì)陷入癱瘓。最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人阿亞圖拉阿里哈梅內(nèi)伊(Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)的政權(quán)顯然認(rèn)為,擱置核野心有助于增加政權(quán)的生存機(jī)會。
It is possible, as Mr Obama’s critics predict, that Iran will spend much of the estimated $100bnin unfrozen assets on regional proxies — Hizbollah at the forefront. So what? Compared to theIslamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) and its mimics, Hizbollah is a restrained actor. Itstheology is absolutist and it has carried out terrorist attacks. But it is not a death cult. In aworld of bad choices, boosting Hizbollah’s clout is an acceptable price to pay for a deal thatdelays — and possibly dispels — the spectre of a Middle East nuclear arms race.
None of this cuts much ice with Mr Obama’s critics. Yet his detractors offer no realisticalternatives. Many Republican candidates are promising to rescind the Iran deal on “day one”of their presidency. Diplomatic norms prevent Mr Obama from pointing out that Iran is a morepromising candidate for peaceful change than Saudi Arabia. Unlike that country, Iran has aquasi-democracy. About half of its university graduates are female. There are competing powercentres within Iran’s theological regime. Prospects for further relaxation are easy to imagine.By contrast, the House of Saud rests on brittle foundations. Who dares guess what wouldcome after it? Iran is a natural counterbalance to Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi theocracy. As anon-Arab country, it is incapable of dominating the Middle East. There is also the small matterof how to defeat Isis. Without Iran’s help, the US would be in far worse straits.
There are moments when US presidents take risks that alter the world as we know it. RonaldReagan’s friendship with Mikhail Gorbachev is one instance. Richard Nixon’s opening to China isanother. Mr Obama’s deal with Iran is almost as breathtaking in its scope.