Madeleine Albright, writing for CNN, has said that the Iran Deal is a “win-win.” Albright speaks of “dialogue” and “further diplomacy” in regards to working diplomatically with Iran instead of the futile sabre rattling, such as when Iran threatened to block the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, which has characterised the rhetoric (and actions) between the U,S, and Iran over the last 36 years, when the Islamic Revolution of 1979 took place and the U.S. broke of ties after its Embassy was famously occupied during the Iran Hostage Crises of November 4, 1979.
— The Iran Deal (@TheIranDeal) August 31, 2015
The most recent agreement, however, seeks to move forward and Albright is answering critics of the Deal who are unaware of the details of the agreement.
“This could not have happened unless there had been very careful diplomacy.”
This diplomacy is aimed at limiting Iran’s capacity to produce materials needed for a nuclear weapon as well as leaving the door open for addressing human rights issues.
The Iran Deal will see Iran give up its nuclear weapon capability in exchange for unfreezing billions of dollars in oil revenues and allow the country greater production and income from its oil industry; the potential for greater inward foreign direct investment is there as well as McDonald’s could very well see itself in Iran in the very near future if this deal goes through. Iran could see itself as part of the Saudi Arabia/Pakistan alliance with the West, at least economically. Politically, Iran and Israel’s relationship is ice cold as Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously regarded Israel as a “disgraceful blot.”
“Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth.”
Such provocative statements have led some to question whether any deal should be made with a country that has vowed to destroy Israel.
Although objections to the Iran Deal are based on evidence that Iran is not a friendly partner in negotiations, the alternative — no agreement — seems worse for all parties involved. Hence, Albright’s “win-win” is really just an acknowledgement that the current arrangement of lose-lose will come to, albeit a short term, end. That is to say that for at least 15 years Iran will be closely monitored to assure it does not produce the materials required to build a nuclear weapon.
The Russian media is praising the deal, with the Russia Insider covering the Iranian view as not lose-not lose.
“I believe this is a historic moment. We are reaching an agreement that is not perfect for anybody but is what we could accomplish. Today could have been the end of hope, but now we are starting a new chapter of hope.”
Although politically, the Russians support a deal, the oil industry in Russia would suffer as a result of increases in Iranian oil exports. But it seems this concern is moot as other cooperation measures between the two countries are likely to balance this negative effect.
— ISRAELDEFENSE (@_israeldefense) August 25, 2015
What is clear is that the Iran Deal can be nothing less than a win-win, as everyone is made more secure by this arrangement than the status quo. In either case, the reality of cooperation between Russia (and other Eurasian countries) and Iran means that if the U.S. rejects the deal, they might be isolated from the benefits of political and economic cooperation. In short, a “no” vote by Republicans can only be a symbolic gesture as the world may move toward normalised relations with Iran even without the agreement.
[Image by Handout/Getty Images]