WASHINGTON
(AP) -- Unhappy with President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran?
Republicans running for the White House are vowing to rescind the
agreement, some on their first day in office.
But it may not be that easy.
If
Iran lives up to its obligations, a new president could face big
obstacles in turning that campaign promise into U.S. policy. Among them:
resistance from longtime American allies, an unraveling of the
carefully crafted international sanctions, and damage to U.S. standing
with the rest of the world, according to foreign policy experts.
"The
president does not have infinite ability to get other countries to go
along with them," said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "One of the
consequences is the United States would be increasingly isolated at a
time when Iran is increasingly integrated with the rest of the world."
Both
Obama and Republicans know firsthand the difficulties of dismantling
major policies, a task that only gets harder the longer a policy has
been in place.
After more than six years in
office, Obama has failed to achieve his promise to shutter the
Guantanamo Bay prison, despite signing an executive order authorizing
its closure on his first day in office. And more than five years after
Obama's health care overhaul became law, Republicans have been unable to
find a legal or legislative means for repealing the sweeping measure.
While
some elements of the nuclear accord don't go into effect immediately,
the centerpiece of the agreement is expected to be implemented quickly.
If Iran curbs its nuclear program as promised, it will receive billions
of dollars in relief from international sanctions.
To
Republican presidential candidates, rolling back that quid pro quo
would be a top priority if they were to win the White House.
Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker says he would "terminate the bad deal with Iran on
day one" and work to persuade allies to reinstate economic sanctions
lifted under the deal. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry concurred, saying
one of his first actions in office would be to "invalidate the
president's Iran agreement."
Jeb Bush, the
former Florida governor, said that while he would consult with allies
about the deal on his first day in office, he was inclined to "move
toward the abrogation of it." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told The
Associated Press he would withdraw from a deal even if allies objected.
The
next president has no legal obligation to implement the nuclear
agreement, which is a political document, not a binding treaty.
But
if there's no sign Iran is cheating, it's unlikely the European allies,
who spent nearly two years negotiating alongside the U.S., would be
compelled to walk away and reinstate sanctions. And it's nearly
impossible to imagine Russia and China, which partnered with the U.S,
Britain, France and Germany in the talks, following a GOP president's
lead.
"Shattering something like this with the
British and the French and the Germans - that has consequences," said
Ilan Goldenberg, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American
Security and former Obama State Department official. "A new president
isn't going to want to lead off like that."
To
be sure, a U.S. president with a friendly Congress could unilaterally
reinstate American sanctions on Iran. But the economic impact would be
far less if other countries didn't follow Washington's lead.
Beyond
Europe's interests, the White House says U.S. partners in Asia,
including Japan and South Korea, will also likely have boosted their
financial ties and oil purchases with Iran by the time a new president
takes office in January 2017.
A wealthier,
more globally integrated Iran is a scary prospect to opponents of the
deal. Republicans contend Obama signed off on a weak deal with Iran,
leaving the Islamic republic on the brink of building a bomb. Some say
the president should have left the negotiating table, increased economic
pressure on Iran, then resumed talks with greater leverage.
The president says the only realistic alternative to the diplomatic agreement is war.
Congress
has 60 days to review the Iran deal. While lawmakers can't block the
agreement itself, they can try to pass new sanctions on Iran or block
the president from waiving existing penalties.
Some
Republicans say the White House is trying to pre-empt congressional
actions by seeking an endorsement of the nuclear deal at the United
Nations Security Council next week. Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, the
chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, wrote Obama a letter
urging him to postpone the U.N. vote until after Congress considers the
agreement.
The White House says the U.N. vote has no bearing on the status of unilateral American sanctions on Iran.
But
Michael Hayden, who served as CIA director under former President
George W. Bush, says the White House's push for quick U.N. action seems
to have a longer-term goal than circumventing this Congress. Seeking the
United Nations' stamp of approval for the deal, Hayden said, appears to
be "for the express purpose of locking in the next president of the
United States."[source]
No comments:
Post a Comment