|
June, 1987 - Ronald Reagan with German chancellor Helmut Kohl at the
Berlin Wall (Photo:
Roland Holschneider/picture-alliance / dpa/Newscom)
Why Reagan
Would Have Opposed Iran Deal
Michaela Dodge
August 25, 2015
Proponents of President Obama’s Iran deal have invoked analogies to
President Reagan’s arms control approach in effort to increase
desirability for the unpopular agreement in the eyes of Congress and
the general public.
The analogy is misguided and flawed (just like the Iran deal itself).
For starters, Obama is no Reagan.
The “great communicator” was willing to stop negotiations when the
opposing party demanded excessive concessions that would compromise
American security.
The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage
Foundation. We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.
Contrast this with Obama. For the Iran deal, the Obama administration
has buckled on:
Stringent verification requirements
Access to key nuclear sites (where Iran has
conducted nuclear weapon activities)
Conditioning sanctions based on Iran’s compliance
with the deal
Access to Iran’s scientists and documents about
these activities
Iranian support of terrorism
Iranian human rights abuses
The list goes on…
The United States is left with an agreement that legitimizes years of
Iran’s nuclear weapon activities, undermines U.S. nonproliferation
goals, and provides Iran with billions of dollars to continue to
conduct terrorist activities around the world.
Undoubtedly, the United States and its allies will be on the receiving
end of these activities more than any other party to the deal.
Reagan realized that strong defense, coupled with U.S. engagement
around the world, is a necessary precondition for other U.S. policies
to succeed.
Without security, there is no government legitimacy. First and
foremost, providing for the common defense is a moral obligation as
much as a pragmatic one.
Take missile defense. Reagan made it an imperative to pursue a
space-based missile defense program designed to shoot down Soviet
ballistic missiles.
The Obama administration gutted advanced missile defense programs, like
the Multiple Kill Vehicle and the Airborne Laser, in its first year in
office.
Obama canceled U.S. missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech
Republic on the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland. He
announced a new plan that was subsequently scaled down, emboldening the
Russians to threaten Europe and pocketing the concession and giving up
nothing in return.
To add insult to injury, the administration conceded to lift sanctions
on Iranian ballistic missile tests, materials, and technologies,
exacerbating the gap between U.S. missile defense and future ballistic
missile threats.
Reagan would certainly be disappointed in Obama’s approach.
The administration has been trying to convince the American public and
Congress that the alternative to the Iran deal is war. The United
States has a better alternative than this at its disposal.
The United States can keep sanctions in place and make them more
stringent. Sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table before, and
they would do that again. Simultaneously, the United States must
improve relations with its allies in the Middle East and Europe.
Obama’s legacy has created adversaries who no longer worry about U.S.
policies, along with allies left wanting U.S. leadership and
credibility.
The United States must improve its military capabilities—what Reagan
would have called peace through strength.
Reagan left the United States in a much better geopolitical position to
his successors than when he began his presidency.
By providing Iran with resources to conduct terrorist activities and a
massive infrastructure to continue on a path toward a nuclear weapon,
Obama is doing the exact opposite: leaving the United States worse off
for his successors.
Read this and other articles at The Daily Signal
|
