Negotiations about Iranian Nuclear Program - the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Other Officials of the P5+1 and Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Iran and EU in Lausanne

Op-Ed: Everyone Wants a Deal with Iran

“It’s the best deal we could get,” Obama claims about his nuclear deal with the Iranian regime, while all the Republicans and some Democrats say, “We could have negotiated for more.” • Why is everyone, on the right and the left, pro negotiating a deal with Iran?

As of this afternoon a miracle didn’t happen on Capitol Hill; some other miracle will have to happen in Teheran (– not a problem; G-d is certainly capable…).

But as it stands now, President Obama may not even need to use his veto power to uphold the deal his administration, as part of the P5+1, struck with the radical Islamist regime in Iran concerning its nuclear program. A program the optimistic and credulous world powers like to believe will be used to foster cleaner energy.

At least formally everyone agrees that Iran is bad but we’d still prefer a deal over war.

The point I wish to make here is not for or against the deal (for the record, if anyone cares, I’m against it); but rather, I would like to discuss the international state of affairs in which it was bred, as well as the language and terminology used to debate it.

Partisan politics aside, if we were to analyze the motives of those for and against the deal from a broader perspective, we would find that, at least officially, the majority of politicians from both sides of the debate share a common ground on most things about it:

  • President Obama agrees that Iran is still an enemy, “But treaties you don’t make with friends.”
  • Most Democrats who say they will support the deal agree that “it isn’t perfect, but it’s the best deal we can get.”
  • Most Republican leaders who oppose the deal think that “the alternative to a bad deal isn’t war, it’s a better deal.” They believe that with better negotiating, we could get a better, more inclusive deal, for the same price and maybe even with the same sanctions we got this one.

So at least formally everyone agrees that Iran is bad but we’d still prefer a deal over war. Furthermore, even hawkish politicians think that war is avoidable, and that we can get Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, creating a safer Middle East and world in general, without firing a single bullet!

I think this deal is just another indicator that the world we’re living in, since the end of the cold war, is a more peaceful and safer one. In today’s world, you don’t have to be a radical leftist to prefer negotiating over war.

No, I’m not a pacifist. True, the world is still far from perfect. There still are plenty bad guys out there in the Middle East (and elsewhere), and war still needs to be an option when we deal with those bad guys; indeed, sometimes war is unavoidable.

However, it’s clear that world sentiment has shifted. In sharp contrast to two and a half decades ago, when “first shoot then negotiate a cease fire” was the mainstream approach – now, even hawkish figures agree that we should negotiate, we can negotiate, and we must negotiate, even with sworn enemies – we just need to be a little firmer. And unlike our pacifying administration, they believe the USA still has the international leverage to do that.

Across from the UN building in the New York City, there is a verse from the scriptures etched on a wall. It reads as such:

“…They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” – Isaiah 2:4

Indeed, great strides to this direction have been made since the inception of the UN; the prophecy no more seems a wishful dream. It is becoming more and more realistic.

The fuel driving the UN’s success in its peaceful resolve of different conflicts around the world is really “he,” – the ever-so-imminent arrival of the ultimate redemption through Moshiach,

But why?

Why did the “United Nations” stand a chance while the “League of Nations” went up in the flames of WWII? Who could have imagined that Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt would succeed where Woodrow Wilson and Edward Gray failed?

The answer lies in the beginning of verse 4, actually censored from the ‘Isiah wall’: And he shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples.”

Exactly who is this “he” that will “judge between the nations”? The commentators say this verse is referring to the King Moshiach, who will restore G-d’s sovereignty in the world. The fuel driving the UN’s success in its peaceful resolve of different conflicts around the world is really “he,” – the ever-so-imminent arrival of the ultimate redemption through Moshiach, pointed to by the many telling signs of the Sages unfolding in the last several decades.

The redemption frame-of-mind was woven so finely into the fabric of the modern world, that war is becoming a last resort for politicians and leaders worldwide with any political leanings. Even hardliners in the Republican Party; all they want is “a better deal with Iran”!

I’m sure many of you share my question – if all this is true, then why is the UN so unsuccessful in the Middle East?

This is my take on the matter –

G-d is leaving that arena for Moshiach to deal with directly. Everyone must understand that true everlasting peace is only achievable by a messenger of the true and everlasting G-d; and when G-d is in the picture, even the war-ridden Middle East will become a peaceful paradise!

Here is another thought. Vast portions of the Middle East were promised by G-d to Avraham to be annexed to the Holy Land in the future. These large areas are presently occupied by sovereign Arab nations; hence, the less partners in the cleanup job, the less claims to share the land! 🙂

This Op-Ed is inspired by the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe

RelatedPost

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.