By Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, JINSA
The P5+1 agreement with Iran over its military nuclear program doesn’t solve any problems, it merely delays addressing them, at most by 15 years. Afterward, these problems will again need to be dealt with, unless a change takes place within the Iranian regime.
There are however several ramifications of the deal that are unrelated to the Iranian nuclear program, and these dangers should not be ignored. The first and almost immediate ramification of the agreement will be a tremendous arms race in the Middle East, both in terms of conventional and nuclear weapons.
The conventional arms race will begin when the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, set off on a large spending spree, mostly in the United States but also in France and Britain as well. As their spending will be limitless, so too will there be no limit on the cutting-edge weapons they will be able to purchase. With the ban on selling conventional arms to Iran set to expire after 5 years, countries will jockey for their slice of the Iranian defense budget. It appears that the Russians won’t wait for the ban to expire and it would not be surprising to see Russian arms sales to Iran within the next few months. After all, the Russians too want to benefit.
The floodgates are expected to open with the never-ending sale of weapons designed to protect Iranian airspace. If Iran decides to build a bomb someday, it must improve its aerial defenses. Russia will provide all of Iran’s needs in this area. The arms race between Iran and its neighbors will become a race to sell military equipment between Russia (and perhaps even China) and their Western partners in the P5+1. If a Marxist were to analyze the deal, he would argue that the whole purpose of the agreement was to allow the biggest players in the arms trade, states and corporations alike, to turn large profits. Even if this wasn’t the intention, it’s clear that this will be the result- a tremendous amount of weaponry will now flow to the region.
A nuclear arms race is more dangerous and while this one will see the hidden participation of foreign countries, the majority of the activity will be of regional states. The Saudis have announced and have written that they will dedicate their efforts to developing a nuclear weapon. In light of their relationships with Pakistan and the longstanding ties between the two states with regard to this issue, it would not be surprising for this to be a short process based on some type of cooperation with Pakistan. The Egyptians have not been as explicit about their intentions as have the Saudis, but there is no doubt that they will also begin similar efforts. The Egyptians don’t have access to the same shortcuts that the Saudis do but they do have the academic infrastructure to support this type of years-long undertaking. Based on historical precedents, it would be appropriate to assess that once the decision is made, provided there is no unexpected interference, the Egyptians will achieve preliminary capabilities within 10-15 years, right around the time that Iran is freed of the deal’s restrictions. Turkey has been even quieter than Egypt on this issue but Turkey cannot afford to be in a situation where Egypt, the largest Arab state and Shiite Iran have nuclear weapons while Turkey – who until 100 years ago ruled over the entire Middle East and is supposed to lead the Sunni world – is left without a bomb. Turkish officials said this explicitly to Congressional staff members and it is likely that this information is accurate and not some type of manipulation or speculation.
The second repercussion of this agreement is related to a more fundamental issue. The Middle East is in the midst of an unbridled sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. This is a war of life and death, and a rather brutal death at that. This agreement, seen by the majority of the Sunni states as benefitting Iran, was preceded by other Western decisions that were harmful to the Sunnis. For instance: the removal of the Sunni regime in Iraq during the Iraq War and the exclusion of the Sunnis from the new U.S. erected regime, avoiding arming the rebels in Syria, avoiding striking Assad after he used chemical weapons against the Sunnis despite the warnings issued by President Obama, and allowing Iran and Hezbollah unhindered intervention in the civil war in Syria. The decisions have led the Sunnis to understand that the U.S. has taken sides in this regional conflict and that it is joining with Russia to help the Shiites over the Sunnis.
The Sunnis, as opposed to the Shiites, have no regional leadership and there is no Sunni parallel to the Iranian hegemony over the Shiite world. The Sunnis may search for such a body to counter the successes of the Shiite minority that represents only 15% of Muslims worldwide. It would not be surprising to see ISIS benefit from these attitudes amongst the Sunnis. It is currently the strongest and most authentic Sunni organization, ready to fight both regional and global powers and sees itself as the leading Sunni body. The “Islamic State” is not just the name of the organization but it is a moniker that hints at a worldview that sees the group as enjoying hegemony in the Sunni world and sees its leader as the leader of all Sunnis. If that is true, who more appropriate than ISIS to fight the Shiites and their ally, the West? Thus, the nuclear deal might increase recruitment for ISIS amongst Muslim youth both in the region and around the world, the majority of whom are searching for personal and religious identity, both of which they will receive in the Islamic State. This agreement unwittingly fans the flames of this violent sectarian conflict in the Middle East.
This agreement provides a boost to terrorist organizations fighting Israel in three different ways. The deal will free up large amounts of money that will strengthen the Iranian economy, some of which will be transferred to these organizations in order to strengthen them militarily. These amounts represent a tremendous amount in terms of the funds needed by terrorist organizations in order to vastly improve their capabilities. It gives these terrorist organizations much greater freedom of action under the protection of a stronger Iran- freed of economic pressure – and it clearly shows that when push came to shove, the United States preferred Iran’s needs over the needs of other states in the region. This will encourage these organizations to act against Israel and against other countries that Iran seeks to harm.
All of these negative outcomes represent unintended side-effects of an agreement that ostensibly dealt only with the nuclear issue (It’s obvious that for Iran, there was more than just the nuclear considerations at stake. Iran demanded the removal of the restrictions on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles, despite the fact that both of these are outside of the realm of the nuclear issue.) It is important to consider how these outcomes should be dealt with because a final agreement may come knocking at the door in only a few weeks, if Congressional ratification or presidential veto make it real.
Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror, Distinguished Fellow at JINSA’s Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy and former national security advisor to the Prime Minister Netanyahu. He is also the Greg and Anne Rosshandler Senior Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served 36 years in senior IDF posts, including commander of the Military Colleges, military secretary to the Minister of Defense, director of the Intelligence Analysis Division in Military Intelligence, and chief intelligence officer of the Northern Command.
do not engage in dialogue with me, in the future
remind me not to engage in dialogue with you, in the future
Here is the place for you to seek the assistance that you need:
http://acelebrationofwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/betty_ford_center_072407.jpg
You have reached reductio-ad-absurdum and, thus, in the absence of any productive suggestion…I’ll seek assistance elsewhere.
Given that Obama will capitulate to Iraq irrespective of what Congress does, my suggestion is that Israel bomb Iran immediately. It must be done sooner or later, and sooner might provide the element of surprise.
Do you have any alternative suggestion?
Poor idea when the captain is Mitch McQueeg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95QqBXLG2I
“All hands on deck!”
You may have noticed that congressional Republicans have violated almost every promise they made during the 2014 campaign. GOP senators have learned that, armed with almost infinite corporate resources with which to repel Tea Party primary challengers, they possess carte blanche to ignore popular will. As a result, “pubic pressure” is an increasingly quaint anachronism.
Public pressure is needed urgently.
If you still believe that McConnell is susceptible to pressure from anyone other than his financial benefactors, pressure him to schedule a treaty ratification vote that will require two thirds approval of the Iran capitulation. He is constitutionally authorized (obligated) to do so.
…which is why I see no other method to stop the deal other than to pressure McConnell to sue, recalling that he pledged to do “everything” possible to block the deal.
Republican congressional leadership focuses enormous effort seeking to deceive the GOP voting base by pretending to oppose Obama even as it enables him. This cynical tactic of petitioning the courts to intervene on behalf of an intentionally hapless legislature is entirely deceptive because a) the courts will never comply in doing the work Congress is authorized to do but prefers to avoid; and b) McConnell and Boehner know it. It is merely theater designed to manipulate gullible conservative voters. As the ascendance of the outsider Republican presidential candidates verifies, the game is becoming shopworn.
The congressional vote on Iran is the Little Big Horn. If you lose that one, General Custer, you can shelve Plan B.
Assistance with getting this effort to go “viral” would be gratefully accepted; a follow-up piece can be submitted via return e-mail (rsklaroff@gmail.com).
@ babushka: SCOTUS lost my trust before I could vote, but regardless, Dr. Sklaroff, at least, has an idea of what to do if congress fails. I for one believe this deal has to be fought in a concerted way with no let up, no stone left UN-turned, as it must be won, there is no choice here. I read his op-Ed in The Hill. It was interesting and it was brilliant. At least someone is discussing a backup plan, especially since it would appear this entire soap opera is nothing more than a shell game. Schumer wants to have it both ways. He had better get his fat ass in gear and start lobbying in earnest, the worm.
Your baseline skepticism certainly resonates, but there remains ample justification to initiate litigation…which [BTW] would easily be perceived as not having been resolved within the 90-day time-frame mandated for Iran to comply, thereby “releasing” Tehran from any obligations…before it receives its $150B!
Hiding behind the pretext of determining “Congressional intent”, Roberts has now rewritten the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the Oxford English Dictionary. If you are depending upon his nonexistent integrity, plan on being disappointed. Kennedy is no better, so either the Senate will perform its constitutional responsibilities or Obama will prevail.
It is amazing that in the aftermath of grotesquely unethical decisions on Obamacare and gay marriage, some people retain faith in the Supreme Court. Which atrocity must they inflict to lose your trust?
…by gauging what it had determined to have been Congressional intent.
No, it emphasized redefining the word “state”.
The ObamaDon’tCare decision in June emphasized congressional intent.
And how did it rule on the blatantly unconstitutional Obamacare? This high court will not bail out the Republicans. If Obamacare is to be defunded, Congress must defund it. If the Iran capitulation is to be stopped, Congress must stop it.
McConnell and Boehner possess the ruby slippers. All they have to do is click three times and visualize Kansas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6VT7ciR1o
Litigation identical to Boehner’s ObamaDon’tCare suit would force the SCOTUS to rule; read my op-ed.
The Constitution mandates that the legislature handle this matter. As with Obamacare and amnesty, the judiciary will be loathe to intervene when the the legislature refuses to exercise its constitutional authority. In simple terms, why should a judge get involved just because the Republican congressional leadership is too corrupt to assume its responsibility? The courts will merely throw the issue back to Congress with the admonition that the legislature can take action if it so chooses.
Thus, although I was the first essayist to raise this prospect, McConnell must be forced to commit to litigation.
Legislative action cannot supersede the Constitution. James Madison included the Treaty ratification provision to address international agreements, so Mitch McConnell has a legal responsibility to conduct a vote based on that provision which includes a two thirds requirement of all senators present for passage. Having failed to secure two thirds approval, the treaty is denied and the House must defund all further efforts to enforce it.
That’s the way it is supposed to work. In real life, Tom Donahue of the Chamber of Congress wants the Iranian sanctions lifted, he spent $100 million of his membership’s money to put Boehner/McConnell in charge of Congress, and so the Constitution be damned.
A fortnight ago, in a posting in The Hill, I argued that the Corker-Cardin Bill should be ditched because it was passed under the assumption – aggressively argued as recently as on July 7 – that conventional arms embargo would not be lifted; this pact could then be treated as a treaty (noting focus on military and not just trade, citing SCOTUS’s Ogden)…with litigation to follow if BHO vetoes and 2/3 cannot be mustered to override.