Joe Lieberman reminds us that he absolutely does not want any agreement with Iran:
Achieving an agreement with Iran that could get 67 votes in the Senate wouldn’t be easy, but it is worth the effort. It would restore the longtime bipartisan consensus in Washington about Iran that was broken during consideration of the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015.
Iran hawks are not serious when they propose making a treaty with Iran in lieu of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For one thing, they would oppose such a treaty under all circumstances, so they are setting up any negotiated agreement for failure. For another, previous presidents have withdrawn from treaties on the slightest pretexts, so nothing would be gained. Making an agreement into a treaty guarantees nothing about its durability. The “longtime bipartisan consensus” on Iran before the nuclear deal was reached had achieved nothing except to goad Iran into expanding its nuclear program. This failed approach is what Lieberman wants to bring back.
The Iranian government wants guarantees that the U.S. can’t provide because a large bloc of our politicians and policymakers are dead-set against reaching any lasting agreement with Iran on any issue. The nature of the agreement is irrelevant. They would fight against it tooth and nail whether it was presented as a treaty or as something else. Iran hawks resent the very idea of reaching a compromise that serves the interests of both states, because they assume that Iran should never receive any benefits in exchange for its concessions. This is not speculation. One need only look at how they respond to any hint of sanctions relief to understand that they believe that Iran should get nothing in return for its cooperation. The truth is that Iran hawks want Iran to be coerced into capitulation, and anything short of that will be considered unacceptable “appeasement.”
Read the rest of the article at Eunomia
Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
The Iran Hawks would rather there be an agreement, which can be stepped out of depending on the direction of the wind. The reaction would be the same for a treaty, which has been considered the law of the land since the founding of our country. After all, what is a treaty to us? What are laws?