It is a good thing there are people like Daniel L. Davis and Dan DePetris who keep America from sliding down the slippery slope that people such as the editors of the New York Daily News and others keep oiling to make it even more slippery and more calamitous.
Daniel Davis wrote an article
under the title: “Deterrence and diplomacy with Iran will keep America safe
indefinitely,” published on April 11, 2021 in The Washington Times. He says
that Donald Trump's policy of sanctioning Iran has been a failure in that it
promised two accomplishments, and failed on both counts. Daniel Davis also
mentioned the work of Dan DePetris who warned that sanctions will have the
perverse effect of costing the United States more than they will hurt Iran. And
this proved to be accurate when Iran turned to China that was only too eager to
do business with oil-rich Iran.
Daniel Davis says that the
Trump administration had promised the sanctions will (a) force Iran to curtail
its nefarious activities in the region. And (b) will compel Iran to come to the
table and renegotiate the nuclear deal in such manner as to give up on key
issues that concern America and its Mideastern allies. But Trump delivered on neither
promise, says Davis, and this is where the Biden administration has the
opportunity to pick up the pieces and achieve some realistic goals by adopting
a new approach.
Davis has recognized that for
this to happen, the American people and their leaders must be reassured that
contrary to propaganda, Iran is in no position to threaten America. Thus,
whether the talks that started in Austria recently to revive the nuclear deal,
succeed or not, America will remain militarily secure because it has the deterrence
that will protect it. America will also have opened the door to diplomacy, a
move that will reduce tension with Iran and other potential foes.
Both Davis and DePetris needed
to say what they did because a movement started a number of days earlier to rekindle
the old fears so as to push for the failure of the talks in Austria and return
to the self-inflicted nightmare about being attacked by Iran. This was meant to
create the imperative of reviving the failed Donald Trump policies of maximum
pressure and perpetual escalation.
A notable piece that went in
that direction, came under the title: “Biden's Tehran tightrope,” and the
subtitle: “Risks abound as the administration tries rejoining the Iran nuclear
deal.” It is an editorial of the New York Daily News that was published on
April 7, 2021, four days before the Daniel Davis article.
To avoid being seen as
one-sided, the editors of the Daily News cleverly accused Barack Obama of
getting into a bad deal with Iran, and did not stop here. They concurrently
accused Donald Trump of pulling out of the deal without the prior design of a
better plan to fall back on. This gave the editors the opportunity to say that
America must not be wrong a third time by returning to the deal without first
having a plan. And so, the editors of the Daily News set out to tell what the
plan should entail. But as you'll see, the plan is Trump's old wine in a new
bottle. Here, in condensed form is what you'll find in that deceptive
editorial:
“Joe Biden can refuse to rush back
into the nuclear deal with Iran without ironclad guarantees from Tehran.
Biden's concurrence with Iran to reenter the nuclear deal must include
intelligent, enforceable conditions. The ayatollahs are desperate to get
American sanctions lifted to boost their suffering economy. To ease the
economic straitjacket and return the US to the deal would be dangerous folly.
Biden must retain the leverage he has lucked into and pave a path to sanctions
relief, step by step. How we get from here to there, matters. Trump has led to
countless errors. Biden must not let his reflexive anti-Trumpism do the same”.
These are the people who
advised sanctions and other calamities previously, and proved to be
disastrously misinformed. It is why Dan DePetris has argued, and Daniel Davis
seconded the following observations: “Sanctions dilute US power over time as
states seek alternatives to the US-dominated financial system that exposes them
to punishment. They increase tension, impose hardship on civilian populations,
and can create long-term hostility”.
It is also why Daniel Davis
has ended his article with this advice:
“The best course for America,
the one that most assures our security and future prosperity, is to recognize
that our conventional and nuclear deterrent will keep our country safe, and
support all diplomatic moves that could lead to a lessening of tensions. The
great news for America is that we will be safe regardless of how talks turn out
–– but the worst possible outcome would be to choose a path that leads to war”.
Like always, America finds
itself pushed by opposite forces in two directions at the same time. One force
pushes America to go to war, arguing that this will keep its people safe. The
other implores America to remain at a safe distance from trouble, keep its
powder dry, and prepare to defend its people if trouble will dare to come
challenge them.
There is no contest here. America has been at war non-stop for eight decades, and has seen nothing but a steady erosion of its power and prestige. It must now take a breather so as to give itself the chance to assess if this is a better option.