The Iran deal

Our man in Tehran until 1979

Joshua Marshall reflects on reactions to the Obama administration's deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon:

The Curious Indifference to an Iranian Bomb
... all the threat talk we hear about an Iranian nuclear weapon is that it is so grave and singular a threat that almost anything and everything must be considered to counter it - even a catastrophic war to push the Iranians' nuclear capabilities back years. If it's really that serious - and I think it is that serious - why would you do anything to get in the way of securing that goal?

Adding something preposterous like demanding Iranian recognition of Israel (something even most of what must now be considered Israel's de facto anti-Iranian allies like Saudi Arabia won't do) is clearly no more than an effort to make any agreement impossible.

... Making such demands can only mean one of two things: either you don't really believe an Iranian nuclear weapon is quite as dangerous as you claim or you really don't want any agreement short of war.

We don't hear anyone demanding what might help solidify an accord with the Iranian side: an apology from the U.S. for overthrowing Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and sustaining our chosen dictator, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in power for more than a quarter of a century. SAVAK, the Shah's security police, was organized with CIA assistance; it specialized in ruthless torture and assassination of any and all opponents of royal rule. No wonder Iranians came to hate and fear us.

The Iranian theocracy that replaced the Shah is pretty awful, but we don't have clean hands here. Our refusal to recognize our faults in this relationship will impede agreements as long as we persist in our convenient historical amnesia.