The continuing, and sometimes vicious, arguments surrounding the fight in Washington about the Iran nuclear agreement seem to ignore an important and self-evident fact. Since 1990 U.S. policy has shown that it is all too easy to go to war. Whereas getting a diplomatic settlement for a wide range of issues has been virtually impossible.
Now we have a diplomatic agreement, how can any reasonable Congress man or woman pass up the chance to see if it will work? As recent history should teach them, we can always go to war.
As this piece from Al Monitor by Akiva Eldar an Israeli journalist and former Haaretz editor argues violence is easy--and easier while diplomacy becomes impossible.
UPDATE: Rep. Brad Ashford, (D.-NE) fresh from an AIPAC sponsored trip to Israel:
“This deal is not good enough for Israel, not good enough for the United States of America, not good enough for the Middle East, and not good enough for the world,’’ Ashford said in a speaking engagement before two Omaha Jewish groups. Ashford’s speech came hours after the first-term congressman returned from a weeklong trip to Israel. There, he spoke to Israeli political, military and intelligence officials about the deal and how it could ultimately affect security in the Middle East.
Thanks Katherine Nielsen for the link.
Money, money, money. NYTimes (8/13) offers this assessment of the role of donors in the Iran agreement fight. Balanced (perhaps too balanced) in pointing to both pro and con donors speaking with Schumer. When considering how few congressional parents send their children off to war, we might ask the same of donors. Why don't those enthusaistic about war and voting for it be the first to sign up, starting with the Congress followed immediately by those who buy them, The Donors.
Nathan Guttman at the Forward fact checks the arguments pro and con.