When it comes to a nuclear Iran, a peaceful, diplomatic solution is not only preferable to a military solution—it is necessary. However, with the recent extension of talks to reach a deal, those advocating against diplomacy present a dangerous threat to the success of a negotiated outcome that brings real benefits to all parties.
As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know all too well the sacrifice that may be required if diplomacy fails. Moreover, I know that such sacrifice does not always result in the accomplishment of the strategic goals used as justification for military action in the first place. As we all bear witness to the horrors occurring today in parts of Iraq, let us take away one important point: progress made by the gun and bayonet is neither perfect nor permanent. War fails, and often.
Put another way, there is no reason to believe that a military response to Iran’s nuclear program would actually ensure that Iran does not ultimately produce or seek to produce a nuclear weapon. To the contrary, limited military action may irreversibly convince the Iranian leadership that a nuclear arsenal is the only way they can stay secure. Such an escalation to conflict seems almost inevitable if the talks fail, which is why they must persist.
The very real possibility of a long-term integrative solution exists, and the negotiations have already yielded results. Iran’s nuclear program has been frozen for nearly a full year, and with a robust international monitoring and verification regime in place, global partners have been able to keep an eye on Iran’s facilities, ensuring that no weapons grade fuel has been produced and that dangerous material was destroyed.
Congress helped get us where we are today with strong sanctions that the Administration enforced. This was a crucial part in a comprehensive strategy to get Iran to the table and a show of how American leadership should work. There is absolutely no place for grandstanding, brinksmanship, or any other spoiling behavior from the sidelines at this critical juncture. But urging for military action against Iran isn’t the only way lawmakers on Capitol Hill could scuttle this essential dialogue.
Undermining the talks with additional sanctions mid-stream runs the very real risk of falsely demonstrating to Iran that the United States is not serious about achieving a deal or that we would not in good faith uphold any deal reached. Such coercive action may then, paradoxically, harden Iranian leaders to the difficulties faced under already burdensome sanctions. Their leaders would be empowered to go back to Tehran exclaiming, “We tried, but the Americans never took a peaceful solution seriously.”
Such a turn of events would deeply undermine U.S. diplomatic credibility. Worse yet, it would leave us with few direct options that are not of a military nature. This represents a highly negative walk-away value. Ultimately, a deal that keeps America and its interests safe and nuclear weapons out of Iran is still achievable. Now is the time to support the continued diplomatic process through the home stretch rather than sow the seeds for another bloody and costly conflict.
