Congress should give the interim deal with Iran a chance

After a decades-long standoff, Iran and the West (plus China and Russia) have signed an interim agreement to halt Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for modest sanctions relief. While some are calling it a historic breakthrough along the lines of Nixon’s visit to China, the U.S. media has been mostly skeptical. And in a rare display of bipartisanship, Congress is already looking for ways to derail the deal by passing legislation to impose new sanctions on Iran and tie the President’s hands for future negotiations. Despite the fact that President Obama has successfully passed tougher sanctions on Iran than any previous administration, the U.S. media in lockstep with Congress continue to thumb their noses at anything that resembles diplomacy when it comes to Iran. And while other U.S. allies in the region—primarily the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia—have expressed their concerns over this deal, few Americans care about what the Saudis think. As representatives of the American people, what Congress really cares about is what Israel thinks.

That’s where things get dicey.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wasted no time in calling the deal a “historic mistake.” Consistent with his hard-line views on Iran, Netanyahu believes that Iran has bamboozled the world, and has ramped up the rhetoric for a unilateral military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And because the Israeli Prime Minister gets to send his spokespeople to talk to the U.S. media, it would be very easy to conclude that the “Israeli perspective” is to prefer military action instead of diplomacy.

That conclusion is wrong.

The Israeli military establishment and intelligence community have long been at odds with Netanyahu on how to handle the stand off with Iran. Israeli intelligence has concluded that Iran has not yet made the decision on whether to build a bomb , and that a military strike on Iran would lead to further destabilization of the region, while (at best) delaying the nuclear program by a year or two. In essence: not only would a war with Iran tank the world economy and send oil prices skyrocketing. It wouldn’t even accomplish its objective. Israeli investors seem to agree with the military establishment. After news of the deal, the Israeli stock market went up, showing that Israeli investors see the deal as diminishing a risk of a military confrontation, rather than augmenting it.

Those opposed to the interim deal with Iran should consider what would have happened had there been no deal at all at the Geneva talks. According to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, in 2003 Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program, but the Bush administrated believed that Iran, having been battered by sanctions, would either capitulate or collapse if Washington stayed the course. The result was that Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003. Today it has 19,000 centrifuges. Given that the interim deal is the first time in a decade that Iran has halted any aspect of its nuclear program, it appears that talking has a better success rate than not talking.

Does this mean that the U.S. and its allies should trust Iran? No. It doesn’t. And given that both parties in Congress are actively trying to derail this deal by unilaterally imposing harsher sanctions, Iran has good reasons for not trusting us either. But that’s why the interim deal, though far from perfect, is at least the start of something good. It opens up Iran to unprecedented levels of inspections, forces them to neutralize uranium enrichments beyond what is needed for electricity, and puts them in a position to where if they decided to cheat or renege on their end of the deal, they would have to do so openly in the eyes of the world. Up until now, Iran could claim that U.S. style diplomacy is do-what-we-say-or-we’ll-strangle-you. At least now, if Iran balks, the U.S. and its allies can credibly say that they gave peace a chance.

Before Congress jumps the gun, it needs to take a deep breath… and let the diplomatic process continue.

Aaron Taylor is on the steering team of Evangelicals for Peace, a network of Evangelicals dedicated to the principles of just peacemaking. This article appeared on Sojourners.

God is pro-peace

By Aaron D. Taylor

On January 31st 2004, the late Jerry Falwell wrote an article for the World Net Daily called God is pro-war. While the article was intended to rally support for President Bush and the invasion of Iraq, for many it left the indelible impression that evangelicals are uber-nationalistic war- mongers, willing to plunge the world into endless conflict in order to fulfill their apocalyptic fantasies. As a person who (loosely) identifies with the evangelical tradition, allow me to make a clear, unambiguous, declaration:

God is pro-peace!

You may be thinking, “Just how exactly does a guy who claims to believe in the inspiration of Scripture arrive at the conclusion that God is pro-peace? Has this guy even read the Bible? Or maybe he’s one of those amnesia-type Christians, the ones that read through the Bible every year as part of their daily devotions, and every time they get to the slavery and genocide passages, their mind goes______________.

Maybe it wasn’t those exact words, but believe me, I get it!

What about the Canaanites? The Jebusites? The Amalekites? That verse in the Psalms about babies that nobody wants to talk about? And the one about women being forced to marry their—oh my! Did Moses really command the Israelites to march into towns and kill everything that breathes? What about hell? The infinite inferno that evangelicals believe awaits everybody (except for them) after they die? The god that evangelicals worship, the one that allegedly hates gays, Muslims ,socialists, and feminists—is pro-peace?

I’d be lying if I said that I haven’t agonized over some of the awful things that are in the Bible, as well as the picture of God that many associate with the evangelical tradition, but at the end of the day my faith isn’t about who gets into heaven and who doesn’t, it’s not about whether hell is literal, metaphorical, or temporal; it’s not about which political system God likes more than others, and most importantly, it’s not even about which system of Biblical interpretation is the right one, whether the Bible is factually inerrant in every detail or whether vast sections of the Bible can be understood as allegorical, these are all important questions, but they all miss the point. At the heart of the evangelical tradition (and indeed, the Christian faith), is the conviction that God’s character is fully and finally revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is why I can say that God is pro-peace….Because Jesus is pro-peace.

Jesus said, “Love your enemies” and “Blessed are the peacemakers.” He refused to participate in violent insurrection against the Romans even though, by all standards, throwing off the Roman occupiers would have been a “just war.” As the Roman soldiers were piercing his flesh and crowning him with thorns, his response was “Father forgive them.”

The New Testament boldly declares that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God”, “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being.” (Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3) Notice the word exact. Exact is a strong word that leaves no wiggle room for deviation. God is exactly like Jesus. This means that whatever image of God I might have, whether it comes from my circumstances or life experiences, whether it comes from my imagination or even my own religious tradition, if the image of God in my head can’t be reconciled with the man who loved, blessed, and prayed for his enemies even while they were crucifying him—then that image is wrong!

Today the drumbeats of war are sounding again, and this time the anti-Christ du jour is Iran, the country (ironically) strengthened by our last invasion. If you’re wondering if evangelicals can summon the resources within their faith to encourage proactive peace making, the answer is a clear and unambiguous yes. If God is like Jesus, then God is pro-peace.

I pray the message is clearer this time around.

A version of this article is on God's Politics

America’s budget-busting foreign policy disconnect

By Aaron D. Taylor

A recent Gallup poll shows that 81% of Americans want the President to be focused on domestic issues, while 9% say they want him to focus on foreign policy issues. Not too surprising….Until you consider that the fastest growing domestic priority is the deficit (69%). The lopsided number between the importance of the deficit and the importance of foreign policy is the first clue that, for most Americans, there’s a disconnect between domestic policy and foreign policy.

Clue number two is a bit more alarming.

The same poll indicates that 54% favor a “strong” stance—read: military attack—against Iran versus 39% who say that it’s more important to avoid a military conflict with Iran. Put these facts together and a disturbing picture emerges: the less Americans care about foreign policy, the more willing they are to go to war, and the less they’re able to see that war=skyrocketing deficits.


The disconnect couldn’t come at a worse time.

While the West is trying to strangle Iran into submission with sanctions, Iran has responded with threats to close off the Straight of Hormuz, and if Iran were to carry out their threat in any way, it would trigger the Carter Doctrine , which demands a military response to any hostile party that seeks to impede the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf.

This wouldn’t be so bad if we could actually talk to Iran, but ever since the revolution in 1979, the U.S. and Iran have had no official ways of communicating with each other. Despite the pro-war rhetoric by some in the media, the idea of talking to Iran is not a concoction invented by naïve, idealistic, peace-nik appeasers in the vein of Neville Chamberlain.

Admiral Mike Mullen has this to say:

We haven’t had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran, so we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right — that there will be miscalculation which would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world (italics emphasis mine)

Another person that believes the U.S. should negotiate with Iran is Robert Baer , the ex-CIA agent who inspired George Clooney’s character in the movie Syriana. In his ground-breaking book, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower, Baer presents three options for how the U.S. could deal with Iran: contain Iran (which would take a half a million troops and would last anywhere between 30 and 100 years), provoke a Sunni-Shia war (the Mad Max Option), or settle with Iran. Of the third option, Baer writes:

The only real option for the United States—if we admit we’re not prepared to enter a hundred-year war, with a determined enemy, on the other side of the world—is the last one.

Baer also war warns that war with Iran would “drain the treasury” and turn us into a “third world economy.”

Whether Baer’s predictions are accurate or not, at the very least America should be skeptical about its ability to contain the consequences of another military confrontation. Few predicted that invading Iraq would cost us a trillion dollars and result in strengthening Iran—but it did.

The people that are pushing for a military confrontation with Iran are walking a fine line of contradiction. On the one hand they behave as if Iran is powerful enough to be the single greatest threat to the existence of humanity. On the other hand, they behave as if we can bomb them without consequences. If only 2012 wasn't an election year!

God help us if things get out of hand.

Obama the most anti-Israel president in history?

Okay, this is just looney. Here's the latest e-mail I received from my good friends at the ACLJ.

Dear Aaron,

President Obama has talked about ''unwavering'' support for Israel, but we're seeing something quite different. As Congressman Mike Pence correctly put it, ''This Administration has become the most anti-Israel Administration in American history.''

It is imperative that we - as a country and as individuals - never falter in our support of the State of Israel.

As you know, we are at the International Criminal Court this week to defend Israel's right to sovereignty and the right of every free nation to defend itself from terrorists. The impact of this case is global. And now, more than ever, it's clear that we have a distinct and special role in standing with the nation of Israel and its people.

I urge you to read Jordan's latest online Washington Post article, ''Why Christian Conservatives are Israel's Ambassadors.'' It explores this critical issue and explains why the American Center for Law and Justice is so focused on protecting Israel and its future.

Once you read the article, please post a comment about why you support Israel at the Washington Post website.

I am truly grateful for you and other committed ACLJ members who have stood, and continue to stand, alongside us in support of Israel and its people.

As one of America's greatest and most trusted allies, Israel represents what we in this nation cherish most - democracy, freedom, and sovereignty.

Seriously Mr. Sekulow? Obama is the most anti-Israel president in history? Would you like to back that up please? Because last time I checked, Obama has increased military aid to Israel, increased intelligence cooperation with Israel on Iran, and strengthened trade relations between our two countries.

Gullible people are going to believe you.

Why?

Because the president's name is Barack Hussein Obama.

For an excellent article on Obama's support for Israel, click here!