The debate

THESE DAYS, it’s agitating witnessing the “debate” over the Iran deal unfold. The conversation has reached some pretty low points, making the conversation about dual loyalty and Jews, instead of addressing the substance and merits of the agreement itself.

Why is this happening?

We live in a democracy. In a democracy, dissent or disagreement should not equal disloyalty.

There’s been a lot of condescending rhetoric. Like the US telling Israel what is best for her, as if she doesn’t know herself. Or the US magnanimously offering assurances to Israel with promises such as “if Israel is attacked, the US will protect it,” while drafting agreements that increase the risk of attack and undermine Israel’s ability to defend herself by herself.

Don’t get me wrong, I am beyond grateful to US military support of Israel. But really, it is a bit of a ridiculous statement. As if to imply that maybe, possibly, theoretically, should Israel have to cope with war, America will be there. What has Israel been living with up till now? Flowers being shot at the country?

It has an echo of a reprimanding parent, calming Israel like a child that is hysterically overreacting.

But enough about Israel, because the truth is as much as this deal endangers Israel, it is about so much more than that. Those ballistic missiles — that is about our American safety. And ultimately, this conversation really is about the forces of good and evil.

THE TRUTH is, the Iran deal is most likely a done deal. Once America chose to go through the UN Security Council, Congress was basically neutered.

Yeah, sure, debates and opinions are flying high. But in reality, this agreement was in essence already approved by the world.

Personally, I don’t believe that should be a prescription for giving up. If someone truly believes something is wrong, it should be fought, on principle. Pragmatically, it may not affect an outcome, but by opposing certain outcomes, this too becomes a part of a process that fleshes out an issue and helps define it to its fullest.

Opposing the deal is any citizen’s right. Such opposition should be regarded with basic decency. But even more so, considering that this agreement has passed at the Security Council, and that a veto is quite unlikely, why are those who oppose the deal still being demonized?

It makes you wonder.

Then there is the war-mongering finger pointed to those who oppose the Iran deal.

At first I was insulted by the dichotomy the president painted, it’s this deal or war.

I thought it was simplistic, to say the least. As if by opposing this deal you are some blood thirsty war mongerer.

Aside from finding it offensive and an attack on my morality, I thought it also yielded the kind of response that shuts down a more complex debate, instead bringing on responses of yes or no, for or against, rather than actual discussion of the ‘why.’

The choice has been framed in such a way that triggers defensive shot from the hip responses.

I am a strong believer in trying everything before war. After hearing the president in his own words explain why he isolated the nuclear deal and didn’t tie it to anything else, be it hostages, Iran’s behaviour etc., I found that point to be an honest and interesting one.

In my mind I was willing to go there with the president. After thinking it through though, not only did I circle back to my original stance of opposing this particular deal, but if anything, this new perspective strengthened why I opposed the deal.

For if the US approach to the negotiations was to ignore everything else the US has trouble with regarding Iran, and as a priority, chose to focus solely on addressing Iran’s nuclear weapon issue, then even more so, a much tougher deal should have been reached.

I AM trying to read both sides of the debate, by those who oppose the deal, as well as those who support it, and not only support it, but emphasize what a crucial narrow window of history this deal presents. Many of the arguments in favor make sense and sound good. It means slowing down Iran by 10-15 years, and who knows what Israel can delvelop technologically in the intervening years that will then put such nuclear facilities under control.

It all sounds good. If it would actually be possible. Because then I wake up and remember we are talking about Iran. Iran. Who has cheated on every previous agreement and will cheat on this one too.

Which brings me back to the way the president has framed this debate as War or Peace.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking.

The president is right. On some level, once all the debated and conversations have been had, it comes down to such a decision.

We all like to think of ourselves as good moral and kind people. As living a part of the fabric of humanity and wanting a better world, a better life, for the people.

After all, the people of Iran, are not the government of Iran, right?

But what if after much discussion, thought and introspection one does in fact honestly and painfully come to the conclusion that yes, war is the choice that needs to be made in this situation. War not peace. Not the signing of papers with Iran, but the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities with MOP’s [massive ordnance penetrators].

What if?

It seems the way the conversation is being structured that it does not give permission to admit one may, in fact, legitimately reach the reality that in this particular case war is actually the moral and pragmatic way to cope with an evil regime.

At this point, it’s not my personal conclusion.

I still hope we can re-examine sanctions and the current agreement — and change it, yielding a very tough diplomacy and a deal that is more iron clad.

But for those who disagree with me, in this particular case, I think it should be legitimite to say, yes, I come down on the side of war, without being compared to an Iranian hardliner on fire by a burning American flag.

Copyright © 2015 by the Intermountain Jewish News