As Republican presidential candidates bicker over who would tear up the Iran nuclear agreement fastest -- a spectacle which will be on full display at tonight's debate at the Reagan Library -- events last week in Congress made it all but certain that the deal will be a defining feature of global politics for the next decade.
The question is no longer whether we should move ahead with the deal, but how. While many of the agreement's opponents will live in denial and continue talking about what they would do to the deal, as though a wave of a wand (or an election) could make it go away, the rest of us need to start focusing on what we can do with the deal. Skeptics and supporters should be able to agree on one thing: The next American president needs to be someone who sees both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the agreement and, just as important, has a real plan to make it work.
We must be clear-eyed about both the challenges of this deal and the intent of the Iranian regime we negotiated with. Implementation is not inevitable -- in the coming years, it will require leadership that is vigilant and able to continue to rally the same international toughness that got us here.
Moving forward, our common posture towards Tehran needs to be one of steady distrust and unstinting verification. The burden of proof remains on Iran, and this agreement gives us the tools to deter violations and to catch anything that Iran tries. For this to work, Iran's leaders must understand that any attempt at evading its terms will be quickly detected and met with a decisive reaction from the United States and its partners.
Instead of blatant cheating, the greatest risk is that Iran waits to move forward with a nuclear weapons program once the deal's provisions start to expire. That's why in the years ahead we'll need Transatlantic leaders who will stay united in opposition to any movement toward a nuclear-weapons program, making clear to Tehran that all options remain on the table if it tries to race for a weapon. It is critical that the Iranians understand that not just the United States, but also its allies and partners, will act decisively in response to any violations.
While removing the nuclear weapons capabilities addresses an urgent security threat, we must be under no illusions that Iran will suddenly stop its other destabilizing actions in the region. Collectively, we must forge a plan to enhance the stability of the region, to support Israel and further bolster our commitment to its security, and to work with our partners to counter Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, and Iranian meddling in conflicts across the Middle East.
This includes continued U.S.-European cooperation on counterterrorism, and working together on providing Gulf partners with the military capabilities to deter and respond to any Iranian aggression. For the United States, we should make clear our enduring commitment to a robust military presence in the region, as well as deepening efforts to strengthen regional cooperation in areas like missile defense, maritime security, and countering cyber-threats.
The common ingredient in all of this is strong leadership that brings the world together -- we need leaders that understand the tools this agreement provides, knows how to use them well, and who stick together with the same kind of common purpose and resolve that imposed crippling sanctions and brought Iran to the table. While this agreement is principally about security in the Middle East, its implementation and enforcement rely heavily on strong Transatlantic cooperation. Seen this way, it will be one of the core U.S.-European projects of the next decade.
President Obama has rightly said that his name will forever be associated with this agreement, but its success depends on his successors. The current debate in Washington reveals a stark choice.
One position was best articulated last week by Dick Cheney and Donald Trump. They may be two of the most polarizing figures in American politics, but on this issue they represent the Republican Party's mainstream. Every GOP candidate opposes this deal and pledges to scrap it immediately. That might sound tough at the moment, but in fact it is the diplomatic equivalent of cutting and running. This would have disastrous consequences: not only freeing Iran from the agreement's constraints, but by breaking with the strong alliance that brought us to this moment, it would plunge the Transatlantic relationship into crisis.
On the other side stands Hillary Clinton. The former Secretary of State was instrumental in cobbling together the coalition that led to the tough sanctions on Iran as well as backchannel diplomacy that made the talks possible. And as she made clear in a major speech in Washington last week, she understands the arduous work required to implement this agreement, and has experience and global relationships to do so.
For this agreement to succeed, global unity is key. Trying to rip this agreement apart 15 months from now will do nothing but shatter that consensus. The years ahead require steady enforcement, smart leadership and strong unity by the United States and its European partners. So when one looks beyond the chest-thumping rhetoric and considers who is best suited for this task, the choice is clear.
(AP photo)
