Iran has been in the news frequently over the last weeks due to the breakthrough achieved in Geneva to halt aspects of Iran's nuclear program (in particular, enrichment of fissile material) in exchange for sanctions relief. Hundreds of pages have been written just over the past half-month about whether the deal is good or bad. The agreement is a veritable Rorschach test: some see Neville Chamberlain proclaiming "peace in our time"; others see Nixon walking on the Great Wall.
This blog is about compromises, and I wanted to examine how the language of compromise is present in our discussion of the deal. I recently read this interesting article about how President Obama is playing the expectations game. By stating that he believes the accord may fail and cause further sanctions, he is able to simultaneously please both hardline hawks and doves demanding diplomacy. The doves see statements like this as a feint to please hardliners and buy time for the negotiations to work. The hawks see it as an acknowledgement of what they see as weakness.
I personally see the negotiations as a step forward; after all, threats of military force have failed for the past decade. Now that the (somewhat) reformer Rowhani is in the ascendency, wasting the chance for rapprochement seems foolish. I'm glad, however, that the President is not overcommitting himself to diplomacy. After all, many of his recent public pronouncements have come back to haunt him. Look no further than his red "line" with Syria and "guarantee" that everyone could keep their insurance if they wanted to. Those statements became the story instead of real discussions about Syria and healthcare. I think the President has learned to be more careful with his public statements so that he has more flexibility down the line. It may seem obvious, but under-promising and over-delivering is always better than the reverse, especially since President Obama has no more elections to win.
So, peace in our time? Nay, they'd probably write something more like this: the Obama Administration sees the recent announcement of potential diplomatic discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran as possible and important, while still uncertain, steps forward as part of this Administration's goal of a peaceful future for both the American people and our allies and partners in the Middle East while not permitting Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability that would be detrimental to the safety and stability of the region, including our good friend Israel. Somewhere in that decidedly un-quotable and un-sound-byte-able run-on full of legalese and technicalities linked together by excessive, improper, and unnecessary conjunction use was (possibly) something about Iran.
A statement released by Ted Cruz's office would no doubt read, "The best way to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon is to defund Obamacare."
Another example of where rhetoric and negotiations don't work well is with the budget. While politicians on both sides often make powerful statements about government taxing or spending policies, negotiations between the parties occur behind closed doors. Politicians generally say relatively little when they support a compromise, other than that the compromise was necessary to continue government funding, and is the best possible option. This is not exactly high praise nor descriptive language. I think perhaps that the pragmatism involved in reaching agreements is simply not very appealing to the public in comparison to easy to grasp ultimatums and principles, and so politicians opt for the low profile approach.
ReplyDelete