vox | The core of the disagreement between Obama and his critics is over
the nature of the Iranian regime. Obama sees an Iranian government
that's hostile now, but one that can potentially be reasoned with on
specific issues if given the right incentives. "Iran may change. If it
doesn’t, our deterrence capabilities, our military superiority stays in
place," he told Tom Friedman
on Sunday. The deal is a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see whether
or not we can at least take the nuclear issue off the table."
The deal's most vocal critics see Iran differently. They see it as essentially malevolent;
a government that's fundamentally hostile to the United States and
Israel by virtue of its very identity as a theocratic Islamist state.
This regime will game any compromise to its advantage, pursuing a
nuclear capability and violent foreign policy so long as it's able.
This isn't a fringe position. You hear it from rank-and-file Republicans on the Hill as well as presidential candidate Ted Cruz and likely presidential candidate Marco Rubio. Netanyahu will tell it to anyone who listens.
If you see Iran in this light, then there's only one real
alternative: crush the Iranians. Cotton has argued American policy in
Iran should be "regime change." Netanyahu's vision of a "better deal" depends on Iran being so beaten down by sanctions that it's essentially willing to give up everything to see them relaxed.
Obama thinks this is all pie-in-the-sky fantasizing. His view, laid
out very clearly at a Thursday press conference, is that war is the only
actual alternative to his deal that could prevent Iran from going
nuclear.
