A freshman Democratic lawmaker and former ambassador to Switzerland questioned the conventional wisdom about nuclear weapons and the balance of power in the Middle East, as Congress continues to weigh in on the framework of the Obama administration’s historic agreement with Iran.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), said that a nuclear weapons-seeking Iran, technically, wouldn’t necessarily be starting an arms race in the region, and that Tehran almost certainly would not be using nuclear weapons if it acquired them.
“If Israel does have nuclear weapons, we have to think of the psychological and security impact that has on its many hostile neighbors, including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and others,” he said, raising a compelling theory about the origin of any sort of regional Cold War.
The former 2008 Obama regional campaign finance chairman and the lead US envoy in Bern from 2009 until 2013, Beyer made the case, responding to a caller, by drawing a parallel between the current situation and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Before Soviet arms had been deployed to Cuba, he noted, the Russians were upset with Washington over American nukes in Turkey.
Beyer also intoned that a nuclear-armed Iran itself would not spell the start of an apocalyptic war scenario.
“I think what’s lost, usually, in the Iran debate, with Israel too–the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is still very operative, here,” he said, referring to the Cold War doctrine, which holds that even only marginally rational actors, in most cases, will not start a nuclear war, due to the inevitable retaliation.
“Does anyone really think Iran would use a nuclear weapon without destroying its entire country?” he asked.
Beyer did taper some of his sanguine forecast about the armed Iran scenario, saying it could shape the future of Egyptian and Saudi militarization.
He also cast doubt on the almost universally-believed claim over Israel’s nuclear weapons program and said Tehran’s alleged activity could be causing it to rethink the status of its own arsenal.
Beyer, who noted that “out of respect” he attended Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial March 3 address to a joint session of Congress, also said he believed Israel is the “primary beneficiary” of the deal.
As part of the accord, the administration claims, Iran is committing to exhaustive scrutiny and a scaling back of its uranium enrichment. Military action, the White House has additionally argued, with its rash of unpredictable consequences, would only set back Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon by a few years.
As Beyer noted, Iran’s nuclear program had grown in the face of sanctions.
He, nonetheless, also appeared to back some of the more anti-war aspects to the agreement. He noted that Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons while Israel isn’t, and said a nuclear-free Middle East is a “worthy goal.”
“This framework agreement is a big step in the right direction,” he said.
Beyer also noted that he believed the international sanctions regime would inevitably weaken. As Ambassador to Switzerland, he said he had to convince Swiss authorities of the banking restrictions’ temporary nature, and that they were mostly designed to eventually yield an agreement and stability. The penalties’ diminishing efficacy leaves those in Washington who claim to be fraught with anxiety over Iran’s nuclear program with fewer options, he intoned.
“Once the first bullets fly, you just can’t predict what’s going to happen,” Beyer remarked, making references early 20th Century global turmoil.
Congress is still away from Washington for the Easter recess this week. Rep. Beyer, being from Northern Virgina, was able to make the commute to the C-SPAN studio near the Senate side of the Capitol with relative ease.
When the legislative branch does reconvene, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with a new ranking Democrat in Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), will consider marking up legislation that would subject the Iran agreement to Congressional review.
The Committee chair, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has said he is hopeful the bill will gain the support of a veto-proof majority.
Beyer, however, toed the administration’s line and said that the legislation is ultimately meaningless–perhaps something the bill’s supporters themselves tacitly acknowledge, with their call for legislative “review.” A Congressional vote isn’t required for the deal to be approved, he said, since the initial sanctions legislation granted the executive branch with authority to temporarily relieve Iran.
He also repeated the White House’s praise of the deal’s oversight mechanisms, claiming that every aspect of Iran’s nuclear energy production line will be subject to rigorous inspection.
