The nuclear deal needs a strategy

The sixty-day countdown clock is winding down as Congress prepares to vote on the nuclear deal with Iran, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  Serious questions remain about compliance, verification, and the ability of the United States and the international community to re-impose sanctions should Iran be caught cheating. 

This task would be daunting enough if the only challenge was eliciting transparency from a regime that is a master of deception.  But the Iranian regime also has a well-deserved reputation as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, against its own people at home and throughout the region.

{mosads}President Obama’s goal for this deal is to constrain Iran’s nuclear weapons activities for the next decade in the hope that loosening sanctions will expose the Iranian people to the outside world and transform the regime into a more liberal, representative government that respects human rights and lives in peace with its neighbors.  In short, the goal is an Iran that is willing to negotiate adjustments to the regional order, not subvert or overturn it by force. 

Serious people may disagree over whether this deal is likely to achieve this goal or if it is wishful thinking that relies more on hope than experience. 

But what is undeniable is that the deal will free up billions in frozen assets that Iran can readily use for repressing domestic critics and sponsoring foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.  The White House has not outlined any strategy for how it might “shape the battlefield,” either inside Iran or in the region, to move, coerce or incentivize Iran to liberalize its government and fulfill Obama’s vision.

Where is the ramping up of Radio Farda (“Tomorrow” in Persian) so that more outside news is beamed into Iran?  Where is an Internet strategy that can capitalize on social media to appeal to the 60 percent of the Iranian population that is under the age of 30?  Where is the support for dissidents?  Where are the plans to confront Iranian meddling in Yemen, Iraq and Syria?  Where are the policies that will undermine Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah?  In short, where is a strategy that will promote regime change?

With no strategy to address the growing instability fomented by Iran across the Middle East, we are putting our national security interests, as well as our friends and allies, at risk.

Obama recently compared the nuclear agreement with Iran to President Ronald Reagan’s arm control agreements with the Soviet Union.  In terms of negotiating with an enemy, Obama was correct.  But he overlooked a critical difference between his approach and Reagan’s: a focus on human rights.

Reagan never deviated from his belief that the Soviet system was, truly, an evil empire.  He consistently spoke out in favor of human rights, religious freedom, and the dignity of the individual.  He founded the National Endowment for Democracy to institutionalize US support for freedom fighters.  He kept faith with those less fortunate around the world who did not share the American blessings of freedom.  He used his office as a beacon of hope so that others would not lose hope.

If Obama wants to invoke Reagan, he needs to behave like Reagan.  The president’s hope vision for improving the lives of Iranians, especially the youth, is laudable. But he needs to give voice to these aspirations.  And like Reagan, he needs to develop policies, programs and institutions that will support and promote the millions of Iranians who want a better future for their country.  Ultimately, the nature of the Iranian regime is the best guarantor of peace and security in the region.

Reiss is a former American ambassador and served as the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning from 2003-2005.