Immediately we see a stark result of the Obama foreign policy. We did not have to wait long. As soon as Iran had achieved its twin objectives of retaining its nuclear industry and having the economic sanctions removed, Iran has now moved with its ally Russia to take over control of the Middle East. The first problem to solve is that of the war in Syria. So the Iranian FM did a tour of the ME capitals, Baghdad, Dubai, Riyadh, Beirut, Damascus and met with his counterparts of Russia, Syria and Saudi Arabia to settle the Syrian situation.
Iran supports Pres. Assad because he is their ally and Russia supports him because he allows them access to the Mediterranean from their base near Latakia. Pres. Obama has said that Assad must go, because he is a ruthless dictator who has killed some 300,000 of his own people, but no-one takes much notice of what Obama says any more. In order to save Assad, who now controls no more than 25% of Syria, the Iranians are prepared to compromise, to allow those who control the rest of Syria to hold it while there is a ceasefire.
Saudi Arabia supports some of the rebel insurgents against Assad, but without support from the US, the Saudis can only agree to the ceasefire proposed by Iran. The Iranians are calling the shots, they have filled the vacuum left by US tactical withdrawal from the region, in coordination with their ally Russia. Russia was of course one of the nations in the P5+1 group that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran, in other word the permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Russia, China, France and the UK) and Germany. Since Russia and China were effectively supporting the Iranian position, Obama allowed the US to be sandbagged into a position that for any even moderately pro-American patriot should have been unacceptable.
Instead of continuing to attack ad nauseam the Iranian deal that President Obama hopes will be his legacy for the world, we should try to look on the bright side. Some clarification is in order, it is not after all, the worst possible deal one can envisage, but in order to arrive at the actual deal agreed one must first make certain assumptions:
1. Anti-Americanism in the world, and particularly the Muslim world, is highly justified. President Obama has striven from his first days in office to prove to the Muslim world that the US under his Administration can be a reasonable partner and not the aggressive, arrogant bully that they think it is. Hence his address to the Arab world from Cairo in 2009. Seen in this light “the deal” is merely part of the process of the necessary retraction of the US from its role as the world’s policeman.
2. Iran is justified in having a peaceful nuclear program and so it is justified to allow it to retain its nuclear industry, as long as it does not seek to highly enrich uranium. This can be ensured by having IAEA inspections. Of course, the assumption is that we can trust the Iranians to keep their word.
3. The deal is only concerned with the nuclear issue and any increase in Iranian support for terrorism or expansionism is unrelated.
4. Any diplomatic solution is preferable to continued hostility that could lead to war.
5. Even though the US Administration has said it will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, it is essential to actually take the military option off the table to avoid another Middle East war in which the Americans cannot extricate themselves.
Given these assumptions, it is certainly possible to justify the Iran deal. However, many people, including most Americans, should balk at accepting the consequences of these assumptions. After all, the US Presidency is supposed to represent the interests of the USA, not be an international popularity contest.