Critical commentaries of the nuclear deal often sound more like after dinner banter than rigorous thinking

Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz offers (Boston Globe, July 16, 2015) what I take to be a illusory critique of the Iran nuclear deal that is rather typical of much of the punditry on the Iran nuclear deal.

"We could have stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism."

Two conclusions spring from a reading Dershowitz’s querulous commentary on the nuclear deal with Iran.  First, the U.S. gave away too much in the negotiations.  Second, that the writer apparently believes that nothing short of Iranian capitulation to U.S. redlines would constitute a success.

Rather than accept an imperfect agreement, Dershowitz would like the U.S. to be ready to go to war with Iran to “permanently end” its nuclear program.  He apparently thinks that sanctions could have been kept in place indefinitely and that the Obama Administration was mistaken to have said otherwise. 

Some of his notions about how the negotiations might have been organized would insure ineffectual results.  For instance, he suggests that Middle East allies of the U.S. should be allowed to participate.  Given the multilateral quality of the negotiations that means that Russia, China and other partners should invite their regional friends too.  Imagine how successful that confab would be and how quickly acrimony would break out.

He seems to think—“most crucially” in his words-- that a written assurance by the “international community” that Iran will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons would help demonstrate resolve.  Perhaps Dershowitz thinks a U.S. General Assembly resolution would do the trick?

Critics of the deal, such as Dershowitz, defame President Barack Obama by suggesting that he is willing to sacrifice U.S. security in favor of his agenda.  In turn, they offer careless thinking about how one gets to yes in negotiations and they blithely presume that hanging tough against Iran will eventually come to heel.  

Those who would like to kill the deal need to think much more rigorously about what they suggest as an alternative, and how they propose to put that alternative in place.  So far, what they offer resembles petulance more than analysis.