Weekly Standard converts and still takes Credit

David Adesnik of the Weekly Standard wrote an article to tell those who approve of the nuclear deal with Iran that they were correct in everything they said. He even used their argument to build on and reach that conclusion … but he had a caveat that allowed him to give credit to the side that said no to the deal.

To avoid saying that the side defended all that time by the Weekly Standard was the wrong one to take, Adesnik came up with an ingenious trick to save face while admitting defeat. He plays that trick in the article he wrote under the title: “Here's the Alternative to a Bad Deal with Iran,” and had it published on July 27, 2015 in the Weekly Standard.

When you give the article a quick read, you get the gist of what he is saying which, in a nutshell, is this: We were wrong and they were right except that, contrary to what they claim, there will be no war if the Congress rejects the deal now. So you comb through the article … this time looking for the reason why he is confident that a rejection of the deal by the Congress will not lead to war. And what you discover astounds you.

He starts like this: “Defenders of the deal are right to ask what the alternatives are. What's excessive is their confidence that the alternative is war. In fact, the alternative is not terribly dramatic … because the structure of the deal now on the table gives Iran very strong incentives to remain cooperative.” In other words, David Adesnik is saying that the team which Obama assembled to negotiate on behalf of the United States was smart to have negotiated the terms of that deal, and the Iranians are too civilized to mess with it now.

That's what is astounding about the article. What's fascinating about it is what the author does to save face for the no side which argued on the basis that the Iranian leaders are raving mad, apocalyptic, religious fanatics having no regard for human life, and would sacrifice everything under their control, including their entire population, for the pleasure of killing us who are saints on this Earth.

How does he backtrack from that position to now say that Iran will not, after all, mess with the deal on the table? Here is how he begins to say that: “War is not imminent … at least until the next American president takes office and Tehran finishes negotiating long-term contracts with multinational firms so eager to claim a share of the Iranian market.” But what after that? Will the Iranians risk it all having come this far to put down the foundation for a rebound of their economy and a return to normalcy?

Well, this is where the author pulls a fast one on his readers. Having frozen the Iranians in a position where they will do no harm, he starts telling how America could now exploit the situation: “the result will not be an Iranian sprint toward the bomb, but rather the first step toward restoring America's diplomatic leverage.” He goes on to explain: “the next president and the next Congress will have the same opportunity as today to accept [or reject] the terms negotiated in Vienna.”

There is one more problem that Adesnik needs to resolve. It has to do with legality if the Congress votes no to the deal. Because this will determine whether the rest of the world will side with America or with Iran, the author first explains why nothing will happen till at least April 2016. Still, Congress rejecting the deal may “upset the political balance in Tehran, leading the Iranians to withdraw from the deal … while Obama is working to implement it.” This will make them the villains in the eyes of the world, and America would have won the day.

But, he goes on to say there are good reasons for the Iranians to support the deal. It is that the door will be open for extensive foreign investment to come into the country. This means, the author expects that sanity will again prevail in Iran, something America will exploit to gain time till a new president is elected. He then explores what could happen under different electoral outcomes and concludes that electing an opponent of the deal who will renounce it will allow Iran to walk away from it while pocketing its gains. But this need not happen, he says, because he or she “would retain critical leverage to negotiate a better deal.” That would be an offer to lift American sanctions.

This done, Adesnik gives credit for the side that the Weekly Standard had taken: “Tehran will avoid the activities that would put the U.S. in the difficult position of choosing between war and the acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran. That is why disapproval by Congress would strengthen America's position without risk of armed conflict.” Well, whatever. But let the Congress now vote on a good deal that was negotiated with reasonable people.