Shultz was one of the best-regarded secretaries of state in modern times, so his advice and application of principles enunciated in the Reagan administration are worth heeding: 1.) You must actually execute the ideas you have; 2.) Be realistic about the world; 3.) Do not neglect the military (Sequestration, he said, is “legislative insanity. … You better get rid of that.”); 4. “Think through your agenda. … Stick to your agenda,” he said, rather than be knocked off course by opponents’ agenda; 5.) “Be very careful with your words. Mean what you say. Say what you mean. … No empty threats.”; and 6.) Engage our enemies, but do it from an agenda and from a position of strength.
As he points out, whether on Russia or Iran, the Obama administration has violated virtually all of these precepts. On Iran, he cautioned: “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. … They act directly. They act indirectly.” He explained that “if it weren’t for Hezbollah, Assad would not be [in power] in Syria.” He points out the Iranians are developing ballistic missiles. As for the Obama administration, Shultz scoffed, “They haven’t got the table set yet.” We should be including in negotiations issues such as terrorism and ICBMs, but the administration has ruled out these subjects because Iran objects. Even worse, he says, we have already granted the so-called right to enrich. “Their agenda is to get rid of the sanctions,” he said. “And they’re doing pretty well.” He cautioned against so-called snap-back sanctions since as difficult as it is to impose sanctions, it is harder still to bring them back once they’ve been lifted. He argued that Iran should know it faces additional sanctions unless it gives up its nuclear ambitions.
Most important, Shultz explained that whether we are talking about Iran, Russia or the Islamic State, we need to understand that these bad actors are attacking “the way the world works,” the state system of respected borders. Terrorism, he says, is a tactic, but the goal is to erase national borders and subsume independent countries to these entities’ control. And finally, he repeated a number of times that the administration must engage in much more consultation with Congress. “If you want me in on the landing, include me in the takeoff,” he recalled were the Reagan administration’s watchwords.
All of this is wise counsel, and it so happens is shared by Cotton, whose op-ed was no doubt written without the benefit of the former secretaries’ testimony. Like Shultz, Cotton understands the nature of the Iranian regime. (“Iran has been responsible for the killing and maiming of thousands of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . . Iran also continues to terrorize the civilized world. It is the worst state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, according to President Obama’s State Department. Iran is a lead financier and arms supplier of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying Israel. Iran and its proxies also have a nasty habit of blowing up Jews around the world, from Argentina to Bulgaria to Israel. . . Consider, too, what has happened in the past few weeks. Iranian-aligned Shiite militants have seized the capital of Yemen. Iran continues to prop up Bashar Assad’s outlaw regime in Syria. An Iranian general was discovered near Israel’s border preparing offensive operations with Hezbollah against Israel—fortunately, he was discovered by an Israeli missile. Iran signed a new defense pact with Russia. And Iran proceeded with a sham prosecution against an American journalist held hostage there.”) Cotton also understands that we are engaged in serial concession-granting while Iran advances on all these fronts, which cannot even be discussed at the negotiating table:
To end this appeasement, the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday approved legislation that would impose new conditional and prospective sanctions on Iran if nuclear negotiations fail. The proposed legislation also calls for congressional approval of any nuclear agreement. It would have been preferable never to have eased the economic sanctions on Iran to begin with, but 20 months of negotiations is more than enough time for a process that Secretary of State John Kerry once predicted would take three to six months.
The analysis from Cotton and Shultz is virtually identical and their recommendations should be heeded. We must rebuild our military, say what we mean, exercise leverage we have with Iran and recognize that we are at war with jihadists who threaten the state system and Western civilization itself. The president is clueless and refuses to engage in normal consultation with Congress, but that only increases lawmakers’ responsibility to govern wisely and attend to the federal government’s primary duty, national security.
As Cotton put it, “Perhaps the Obama administration isn’t so much worried about the ayatollahs’ delicate sensibilities as it is focused on avoiding any deadline for itself or congressional review of its actions. This makes congressional action all the more necessary. Congress must protect America from a bad deal—anything less than Iran’s complete nuclear disarmament. The U.S. cannot live with a nuclear Iran, whether it is achieved with a formal agreement or in slow motion through endless negotiations.” Let’s hope Cotton and his generation of Republicans are as wise and firm as Shultz has been over the decades — and that their views prevail with Congress and eventually inform the outlook of the next commander in chief.