America is at an historic crossroads.  We face a stark, fundamental decision about the vision not only for our national security policy but for our core identity.  Are we, as we have often acted in recent years, the hegemon that believes in pre-emptive war, might makes right, and the big stick?  Or are we, as we have traditionally conceived of ourselves, the light on the hill, an example of rights-based and humanitarian principles, the leader-by-consensus of the free world, and the bulwark of international democracy?

The Iranian nuclear deal is a fork in the road that drives at the heart of this identity.  Supporting the Iranian nuclear deal, with its inherent imperfections, demonstrates that we are reaffirming the importance of multi-lateral diplomacy, international norms, and a rules-based global order.  Spurning the deal, the best we have seen or are likely to see in a generation, augurs a return to the worst tendencies of the strike-first, unilateral approach that saw our international standing damaged and our credibility unmistakably tarnished.

You should support this deal, first and foremost, because it offers the best possible solution to an intractable problem.  In the short term, the current deal is the best way to forestall the Iranian acquisition of a nuclear bomb and prevent a wider conflict in the Middle East.  This deal assures that a diplomatic resolution of the issue is tried first so that every peaceful solution is exhausted.  If Iran complies and abides by the terms, they prosper economically, the region gains in stability, and we don’t bear the military and political costs of continued conflict.  If Iran still doesn’t comply with the agreement, then we will need to reassess the political and military calculus of the situation along with our allies.  But the last thing America needs is another prolonged war with an entrenched, ideologically-driven opponent on their home turf that isolates us diplomatically and militarily.  If we reject sanctions and this leads us into direct military conflict with Iran, we will not have international opinion in our corner, and we will be perceived (perhaps rightfully) a rogue hegemon, attempting to forcibly impose our will on those who don’t share our vision.

In the long term, the best case scenario for how this drama plays out is that Iran is gradually brought into the international fold and that sanctions relief allows greater economic development that bolsters the prospects for long-term democratic change in that country.  Iran is a historically progressive, vibrant country that is suffering under an anachronistic, repressive, and reactionary regime.  Iran’s regime is more medieval than modern, and its people need every opportunity to push for democratic reform.  The best way for the US to support this goal is by including Iran in the international order and subverting the Ayatollah and his mullahs through trade, economic development, and greater access to information.  Democratic change, as is happening in China, Myanmar, and other countries with authoritarian bents, comes about through increasing ties with the west and an irreversible process of the access to knowledge and the increasing demand for rights and accountability that it fosters.  We want Iran to have more, closer ties to us and to Europe, through trade, cultural exchanges, and further diplomacy.  There is a proximity effect that is gradual but undeniable.  This is the way forward.

In a recent op-ed for The Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria makes an insightful and apt parallel with Nixon’s opening of China in the 1970s.  He correctly points out that China, much like Iran, was vehemently anti-American during those days, actively supporting Vietnam with whom we were engaged in a hot war, much as Iran supports Hezbollah and the Assad regime, two of our current bête noires.  There are those who argue that we shouldn’t even be dealing with Iran.  That we should further isolate them and make them more of a pariah.  President Obama, talking on Jon Stewart this week quipped that “we don’t make peace with our allies”.  He’s right—if you want to breach the divide and begin to thaw icy relationships, you have to take a first step.  Israel and Saudi Arabia may not like it, but it’s how deals get done and where the path to peace begins.  Israel, perhaps unwittingly (as my parents pointed out to me), serves as a useful foil in this case: when they bemoan the deal and cast it as an abomination, hardliners in Iran are more likely to be mollified and to get on board.  It’s nice to see Netanyahu (although unwittingly and certainly unwillingly) prove useful for a change.

There have been numerous reasons given why we should oppose the deal, and I’ll address them one by one.  Argument #1: The deal undermines our alliances with key regional partners Israel and the Gulf States.  If this deal achieves what we hope it will, it will make for a more stable region and a better shot at lasting peace.  Whether our allies believe so or not, this deal serves their long-term interests.  Argument #2: If we remove the sanctions and take our foot off Iran’s neck, they will use the currently-frozen assets (some $100 billion currently in foreign banks) to fund regional terrorism.  In part, this may be true.  But they will also use it to fight ISIS.  And, for the most part, they’ll use it to shore up their faltering domestic economy to quell the growing internal dissent and dissatisfaction with the regime’s handling of the economy.  Sanctions impact ordinary people the most and have their influence felt in the public pressure that is brought to bear by virtue of their impact.  If we relax sanctions, we help ordinary Iranians.  And hopefully it will be these same ordinary Iranians who will push for democratic change.  We want these people on our side; we want them fighting for greater representation and a more moderate, mainstream Iran.  Argument #3: If we just hold out, we’ll get a better deal.  This argument is fallacious on a number of fronts.  It assumes that we didn’t get all we could, but if it’s a tough sell in Iran (as it is) and it’s a tough sell in the US (which it will be), it was probably a fair negotiation.  Furthermore, we brokered this deal with our allies (and some erstwhile enemies) in tow.  We can’t just recall everyone to the negotiating table—our partners would also have to come with us and agree to scrapping the current deal, which has already unanimously passed in the UN Security Council.  This is not only unlikely, it’s effectively impossible at this point.  This is a hard-fought deal that again, isn’t perfect, but is the best possible deal and the best way toward securing our goals peacefully and positively.  The alternative leads down a darker path and necessitates a much bleaker world view.

What can or should you do?  In the main, don’t sit on the sidelines in this debate and passively let others decide its fate.  It’s too important.  It’s also far too close than it should be.  Call your representative.  More importantly, call your senator (especially if you’re from a red state).  Let them know that you unequivocally support this deal.  Let them know that you know what an historic opportunity this represents.  And that you will hold them accountable for the decision they make.  Make your voice heard.

I want to believe in the America that does the right thing.  Makes the tough, but necessary choice.  And can still lead by force of moral example.  Winston Churchill famously said that Americans always do the right thing…after exhausting all the alternatives.  We’ve tried war, we’ve tried drones, and we’ve tried torture.  We’ve exhausted all bad options.  Get behind the Iranian nuclear deal.  Do the right thing.