At the end of the Cold War, the magnitude and reach of US influence could neither be denied nor contested by the international community.
The Soviet Union, the only other superpower, had collapsed, which meant there no longer existed a check on the US’s ability to extend its influence. With the US
dominating all major international institutions, maintaining the world’s strongest
military and economy, and possessing massive amounts of influence in every region, it seemed that the US would not have to engage in unfavorable diplomatic negotiations. America, it appeared, would be able to actively undermine any nation that challenged it, as its breadth of power would allow it to unilaterally solve most problems that confronted it.
But as Americans noted with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the US cannot hope to singlehandedly defeat extremist groups and impose democracies in the Middle East. Instead, it must employ local actors, some of whom America may dislike, to effectively combat greater, common threats in the region. However, that requires re-establishing diplomatic ties with “hostile” nations and even granting unfavorable short-term concessions to nations in order to advance long-term US interests.
Accordingly, Obama’s decision to successfully negotiate a
nuclear deal with Iran was a tactical move that yields consequences beyond Iran’s nuclear program. While some critics are calling the deal a failure, they miss the greater political importance of such negotiations. America gains little from imposing harsh sanctions upon Iran, as years of sanctions have done little to stem Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Further, without a deal, Iran is unlikely to yield to US pressures to stop building nuclear weapons when the US is responsible for Iran’s economic woes. A deal, however, provides an actual mechanism for regulating the development of Iran’s nuclear program.
More importantly, the US gains political capital with Iran, which can then be utilized to acquire Iran’s assistance in combating more pressing threats. Iran is a powerful actor in the region and can provide necessary troops and political leverage over actors such as Iraq and Syria to effectively combat ISIS and push for democratic transitions in these conflict-ridden countries.
The precedent established by this deal encourages continued negotiations with actors in the region in an attempt to develop pragmatic relationships that serve US interests and to advance national security interests in the Middle East. However, if Congress rejects this deal and refuses to negotiate with key actors, the US will continue to see a decline in its influence in the region. Additionally, war will dictate the terms of relations between the US and the region, bringing about more sectarian tensions.
The recent re-opening of the US embassy in
Cuba demonstrates that the US can overlook past animosities when working with other nations. This is the same mentality the US must use when voting on the Iran nuclear deal in coming weeks. Contact your member of Congress to remind them: The ramifications of accepting or rejecting this deal go beyond Iran’s nuclear cache. By accepting this deal, the US demonstrates its continued willingness to negotiate with actors in the Middle East–by rejecting it, the US continues to cling on to an outdated strategy that will only limit the scope of its influence. - MPAC
