Unlike the robotic ditto-heads in Congress ready to wage war at the drop of an Israeli Prime Minister's flip-chart -- this "retired United States Navy Admiral, who served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2011" Mike Mullen, wants us to try to "focus on the details of implementation and verification [of the Iran Deal]. But let us not in the process forget the larger, longer good it may yield."
Why I Like The Iran Deal (Sort Of)
The former joint chiefs chairman thinks it’s the only way to change the regime.
by ADM. Mike Mullen (RET.) -- April 16, 2015
The nuclear agreement between the international community and Iran already stands as a remarkable if incomplete achievement. As in all such deals, the devil surely lies in its details and in implementation. I like the phrase “Distrust but Verify.” And yet the real significance of this agreement is broader. If successful, it portends historic opportunities for change, not only in Iran but in the Middle East as a whole.
Mullen speaking at a State Department event, 2011. [Public Domain.]
If "Trust, but Verify" was good enough to re-align the Soviet Union, then "Distrust but Verify" ought to be "good enough" to re-align Iran.
[continuing ...]
Let’s talk about Iran first. In the West, we tend to see that country as monolithic. It is not. An epic struggle is underway for Iran’s soul. While there is consensus among the leadership of that country and some of its population about the importance of an Islamic republic, visions about what exactly that implies or how best to ensure its success differ. Hardliners or so-called “Principalists” see such a theocracy as an exemplar and catalyst for regional hegemony -- for a return to empire of sorts, or at least increasing Shi’a dominance. Reformists, on the other hand, see it leading Iran back into the community of nations, still a strong nation, but more responsible regionally and more responsive to the needs of its people.
So which makes more sense:
That we should antagonize the Hardliners; or empower the Reformists?
Perhaps, if we asked the Iranian people themselves, we might get a clue ...
And then there are the Iranian people themselves -- the median age is only 28 -- many largely open to the West and hungry to be reconnected to the world. Theirs is a generation not driven solely by religion, but rather by soaring unemployment, unfulfilled economic opportunities and mounting frustration with the social and moral shackles placed on them by Tehran. They are proud to be sure, and will not blithely sacrifice what they rightly believe are attributes of Iranian sovereignty, such as a peaceful nuclear capability. But so too are they pragmatists, eager for reform and reengagement. As one young woman put it, “I pray that my children will be able to live in an Iran that can play nice with the international community.”
[...]
The Future of Iran should be decided by its young people who want to re-join the international community and the world economy.
And not decided by the old geezer communities elsewhere, who never met a War they wouldn't be glad to fight -- long as it is with other people's kids, and not theirs ...
Is Congress sabotaging a nuclear deal with Iran?
CNN, April 16, 2015