Those who think “a better deal” with Iran is possible are beyond just dreamers– they are dangerous and naive fantasizers. Believing that the US can unilaterally kill the deal, that our partners including Russia will think that is just fine and agree to toughen the sanctions (much less just keep the current ones going), and that Iran will be squeezed so badly they will be forced back to the negotiating table and agree to even stronger conditions, is, quite simply, farkakte. (Yiddish for, um, screwed up.)

The post Nuclear agreement: There is no “better deal” with Iran appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A new CNN / ORC poll just revealed that the majority of Americans want Congress to reject the nuclear deal with Iran that the Obama Administration negotiated. This is a shift from April, 2015 when the majority favored approval of the deal.

It might be farcical that the American people are asked their views on the deal; it’s very complicated and hardly anyone has read it. On the other hand, we’re all entitled to engage in “gut politics” in which we intuitively make judgments about whether or not we can trust an individual or a policy.

The problem with the second approach, the “gut approach,” is that we are more susceptible to emotional appeals, particularly when they are blasted upon us by the electronic media. No sooner had Secretary of State John Kerry concluded the arduous negotiations with the Iranians and five allies than right-wing organizations began saturating the American airwaves with fear-mongering ads that as always, present only partial information and a lot of disinformation.

We have previously written about how the nuclear deal is somewhat similar to the fast-track consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Obama narrowly shepherded through Congress. It’s complicated and does not lend itself to easy consideration. However, a fundamental difference between the two is who the opponents of each is.

In the case of the TPP, those who opposed the President’s stance were primarily his traditional supporters, workers, labor unions, environmental groups, consumer groups, and progressives in general. In the case of the Iran nuclear deal, those opposed are mostly Republicans, most vehemently those who have sworn to do whatever they can to undermine virtually anything that he supports. These people are bankrolled to the hilt and can roll out one ad after another to scare Americans about the Iran deal. Those who opposed the TPP were of limited means and also somewhat reluctant to dumb down the conversation with 30-second fear pieces.

While I am not a nuclear scientist and cannot personally vouch for the scientific veracity of the agreement, I am pleased that one of the top American negotiators was Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, former professor of Physics and Engineering Systems at MIT. He and most other scientists who understand nuclear physics support the deal. This is somewhat like climate change; those with the knowledge support reform; those who are largely ill-informed resist taking reasonable action to address a true threat.

It’s not just the United States that entered the deal with Iran, it’s also countries as disparate as Russia and China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom. All but Germany are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. On July 20, 2015, the ten non-permanent members of the Council joined the permanent members to give unanimous endorsement of the agreement. Those countries are Angola, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Spain and Venezuela.

The fact that the agreement is supported by so many scientists and so many countries is reason, though not assurance, that it is a good deal. One of the problems that President Obama has had in trying to sell the deal is that neither he nor anyone else can guarantee or assure that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons sometime in the future. What’s unfortunate is that opponents of the deal cannot accept the simple truth that there is no way to prove a negative; that something won’t happen. That leaves you with relying on the best information available. This is certainly a far shot better than Congress disapproving the deal and overriding his veto. Then whatever guarantee exists now will be destroyed and the likely outcome will be war with Iran and further isolation of the United States from other countries in the world.

Maybe supporters of the deal will have to take to the air waves, but as we all know, it’s difficult to overcome Republicans pandering to fear.

The post Iran Nuclear Deal too complicated for TV commercials appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the nuclear deal between Iran and five other countries including the United States is complicated, and the devil is in the details. When we’re talking about centrifuges, yellow cake, and a host of other components, it is very difficult for the layman to assess the trustworthiness of the agreement.

In situations where the facts, particularly about variables, are overwhelming, it is important to have one or several individuals who are knowledgeable about the issue to offer their opinions to lay persons.

For much of his administration, President Barack Obama was one of those “go-to” figures for me. I largely trusted his goals and intentions. In the first large legislative hurdle that he faced, the Affordable Care Act, I was supportive, even though I thought that he could have pushed the edge of the envelope more with Medicare-for-all, or at least the public option. The key item was that it was clear that he wanted to expand affordable health care, with limited contingencies, to as many Americans as possible.

During years two through six of his Administration, he did enough to give me reason to have confidence in his judgment and decision-making. I was somewhat baffled, perhaps even concerned, with his hard lines on Iraq and Afghanistan, but was willing to give him a benefit because he was more familiar with the details than I would ever be.

2015 has been a transformational year. The President has stepped up his advocacy for meaningful gun control (this actually began following the Newtown shooting in late 2012). His response to the shooting of nine unarmed African-American citizens in a South Carolina church has been thoughtful and forceful, while appealing to our best emotions. Issues of race and violence are ones in which the layman can offer thoughts without need for experts or “go-to” figures.

But 2015 has also been the year of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Weighing how new international economic relationships will impact on American workers and consumers is difficult to do. Such an issue would normally lend itself to relying on the opinions of a trustworthy person in office.

However, President Obama lost me on the issue for several reasons. None of these reasons have anything to do with an expert analysis of what’s in the treaty. They have to do with the “packaging” of the agreement and all the missed-steps in providing citizens with a recommendation with which they could be confident.

First, the treaty was not designed to be taken up by Congress like most other pieces of legislation. It was offered as a “fast-track” item, in which Congress would agree to its consideration if no amendments were allowed, and there would simply be an up or down vote in each chamber. Initially, a sufficient number of Democrats objected to this process, but somehow the Administration twisted enough arms to gain acceptance of fast track consideration. That process did not sit right with me.

Second, none of us as citizens have been able to see the text of the treaty. Terms of the treaty say that only a very narrow group of “involved participants” could actually see the text. This included members of Congress. However, they would have to read it in an isolated room, take no notes, make no copies, and leave their digital devices outside the room. The other large group of readers were the “captains of industry” and Wall Street Bankers. Left out were representatives of labor unions, consumer groups, health and safety organizations, academics, and just plain interested citizens exercising their civic duty to be informed on the issues.

Third, other people in whom I have confidence have repeatedly explained how the TPP will undermine the economic well-being of American workers, particularly those in labor unions. Furthermore, worker safety can be compromised, and citizens may receive new products for which it would be extremely difficult to hold manufacturers accountable in court for defects. Among those speaking out against the TPP have been Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, as well as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

President Obama never offered a comprehensive explanation of the treaty to the American people. It was not a frequent topic of questions in press conferences. He even refused to take questions from members of his own party when he met with their caucus on Capitol Hill.

The fact that this agreement was shrouded in secrecy and was being advocated by wealthy entrenched interests in the United States and in other countries gave me sufficient cause to somewhat reluctantly refuse to accept the President’s position on this.

And now we have the nuclear agreement with Iran. In many respects, the President has already presented it in a much more palatable way than he did with TPP. In his July 15 press conference, he not only eagerly accepted questions on the agreement; he actually solicited more queries on concerns about the treaty when questions seemed to dry up. The full text of the agreement is on-line. Congress will have up to 60 days to have robust debate and dialogue on the issues. Nuclear experts from both government and private sectors are available to share their thoughts on the understanding. Perhaps most importantly, the rationale for the agreement is clear: to diminish the likelihood of Iran developing nuclear weapons in the near future and thereby promote more world peace. As the President said, there are no guarantees, even with stringent inspection protocols, but it is about as good a deal as could be negotiated under the circumstances.

However, my inclination to support the President on a complicated issue like this is somewhat diminished because of what I considered his extremely shoddy and disingenuous defense of the TPP. I’m going to try to learn as much about the Iran agreement from different sources as I can.

I doubt that I am the only person whose confidence in the President has been somewhat diminished because of TPP. Like anyone, he can earn it back. But to quote him from his news conference, he has “some ‘splainin’” to do.

The post After TPP, Obama may have a tough time convincing some on Iran deal appeared first on Occasional Planet.