It is hard to know how much is really for domestic consumption -- more on their side than ours. It is not insignificant on our side. The reality is that this is the first really big step away from PNAC -- and the Republican and Democratic believers in PNAC are out in force. This is not surprising. What IS surprising to me is the number of people here hoping it fails - either to prove themselves right or for ideological reasons I don't understand.
The fact is that the 6 nations have worked extremely hard to get to this point. Those who argue that another choice is a "better deal" as defined by people like Netanyahu ignore the reality that Iran would be agreeing to a lot if they agree to a fleshed out version of the framework. It is stunning that people who agreed with Netanyahu's strange bomb poster which he used at the UN to claim Iran was months from a bomb -- are saying the agreement is no good because it only controls Iran's ability to build a bomb for 10 years. (Netanyahu went so far as to say of the framework, that even if a deal like that was reached and Iran complied (which surprisingly he said was in their interests), it would be a bad deal. One thing that does is to suggest how extreme a deal would have to be to be considered a "good deal" by Netanyahu.
One thing you might consider is that people are now writing more prominently about what happens if we fail to get a deal. They point out that the interim deal, which did freeze Iran's programs, would not be in effect. This means that there will be calls to ratchet up sanctions - causing more pain. Note that in the years with even the heaviest sanctions, Iran increased its capacity. It is hard to imagine that especially if sanctions are raised they won't do so again. Anyone want a repeat of 2002/2003 with a drum beat to attack a bigger, more homogeneous country than Iraq? Not to mention, doing that while we simultaneously fight the radical Sunnis we have courtesy of the Iraq wars.
This is a multinational effort, but there is some real truth to the idea that this administration, because of who they are and their counterparts in Iran have created an unusual opportunity for settling this diplomatically. Obama/Rouhani are both willing to try (Khatami was open to it in the early 2000s, but Bush wasn't), Kerry/Zarif who are both extremely capable diplomats willing to risk failure, and Moniz and his Iranian counterpart who got his PHD at MIT where Moniz taught. (In Kerry and Moniz, who are long term friends, we have a great team.) Not to diminish the extensive work by the EU and the other countries, these people being involved are why Europeans have said that we made more progress last year than in the 10 years before hand.
Even so, consider than when asked by the media - Kerry said he was "hopeful", rather than assuring them it was in the bag or that it was very likely. He also spoke of a lot of hard work and hard decisions that must be made.
I prefer to back Obama and Kerry - and all the nations on our side. What is gained by almost cheering on things failing? Do you boo your team if well into the came it is tied or they are down one - or do you support them and wish them well in winning?
= new reply since forum marked as read
