I’m a Republican, and I Support the Iran Nuclear Deal
If I was a member of Congress, and if the Iran nuclear deal was before me for my vote next month, I would vote for it.
That may come as a surprise to some, considering that the vast majority of my fellow Republicans oppose the deal. To no one’s surprise, the neoconservative members (read: war hawks) of my party have come out strongly against the deal. Let it be known that these voices do not speak for all Republicans.
The war hawks argue that the nuclear deal will inevitably give Iran a pathway to develop and obtain nuclear weapons. In an attempt to validate their concerns as “bipartisan,” they’ve recruited the support of Democratic senator Chuck Schumer — the same Chuck Schumer who strongly supported the Iraq War back in 2002.
However, we’ve heard their line of argument before. During the 2012 presidential campaign, the hawks of the GOP warned of the impending doom of a nuclear Iran. They injected fear into the American populace, arguing that Iran was “within just months” from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some even vowed to go to war unilaterally against Iran in order to avert this preordained prophecy.
That was four years ago. Back then, the war hawks warned that if we continue with the status quo, Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon. “Something must be done!”, they urged. Yet here we are today, four years later with a deal that will absolve us of the status quo and put us on a path toward peace, and what is their argument now? If we accept this deal, thereby engaging diplomatically with Iran and allowing them to enter the world economy, then Iran will surely obtain a nuclear weapon.
It’s the same, tired push for confrontation, and not only does it make little sense, the doomsday predictions of yore have been proven dead wrong. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon; though how long the status quo can maintain that remains uncertain.
The truth is that those who profit from the propagation of conflict have little use for the fruits of trade and cooperation. This explains why the hardliners in Iran oppose the nuclear deal. They’re a faction in Iran’s regime which feeds off of hatred for the United States in order to maintain their legitimacy. Ironically, they employ the same arguments as the war hawks here in opposing the deal: it compromises too much, we get little in return, and we simply can’t trust the other side, so they argue.
I beg to differ. From an Iranian perspective, the nuclear deal would bring much needed economic relief to millions of Iranian citizens: ordinary people who have nothing to do with their regime’s nuclear activities, yet have been forced the bear the brunt of brutal sanctions for years. From an American perspective, the deal represents “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” according to dozens of retired military generals and admirals who have come out in support of the deal.
Few people know just how much support the nuclear agreement really has, particularly from whom. Along with many in the military community, 29 of the nation’s top nuclear scientists concur that Congress should approve the deal. In their own words, the Iran nuclear deal “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.”
In addition, former Iranian political prisoners are also coming out in support of the deal. They believe that a negotiated peace with Iran would bring stability to a Middle East plagued by chaos, and would help counter the spread of radical terrorism. It seems their interests overlap quite closely with those of Republican and Democratic war hawks. Yet, these former political prisoners believe that we can achieve these goals without confrontation.
Perhaps they’re on to something.
As long as we continue to regard the other side as a sworn enemy incapable of rationality, the prospects of peace and prosperity will fade and be replaced by a reality of war and bloodshed. That’s a future that benefits no one, least of all the everyday people of both countries currently caught in the governmental crossfire. We ought to do everything we can to avoid that kind of outcome. This deal is our opportunity to do just that.
Many are dismissing this opportunity before us now and saying instead, “We need a better deal.” However, we can’t simply order up another deal with everything we want. That’s not how diplomacy works. There is no better deal, this is it.
Whether they like it or not, this is the reality our leaders will have to face. They must either accept this deal, as imperfect as it may be in order to forge peace, or maintain the status quo. So far, the status quo has involved a lot of threats of more sanctions, more bombs, and ultimately more war. It’s clear we have no problem using our fists. Maybe it’s time we started using our brains.
Among conservative circles, it’s popular for our leaders to beat their chests, act tough, and unflinchingly stare down Iran with our finger on the trigger. That really gets the crowds roaring, and the war hawk politicians get a huge ego boost out of it.
News flash: threatening to bomb other countries doesn’t make us tough. But standing up for peace, especially when it’s the unpopular option? That takes real courage.
Alex Robledo (COL ‘17) is a member of the Georgetown University College Republicans.
