An unsatisfying agreement with the Islamic Republic may be on the horizon.
Written by R. James Towe  james@sollicitus.us

A November 24 deadline approaches between the P5+1 (Permanent Security Council members, plus Germany) and Iran on its nuclear program. 

Concern persists that a nuclear deal will be advantageous to the Islamic Republic's economic concerns while failing to reign in its ability to produce a nuclear weapon.

A hubris not seen since the Nixon presidency threatens an already chaotic Middle East.

An indication that the US is prepared to accept a less than robust agreement comes from comments by White House officials that Congress would be circumvented. "We wouldn't seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years," according to an official in the administration. Both Democrats and Republicans in congress would reject any treaty that was less than adamant in dismantling Iran's nuclear trajectory.

By avoiding Congress, the president would continue to legislate and circumvent the will of the people (ignoring the legislative branch). 

It is difficult imagine that Mr Obama would be willing to accept a nuclear Iran, but then again, he idly stood by as young Iranian protesters were dispersed, arrested and beaten during the 'Green Revolution' in 2010. All the while, encouraging similar protests and demanding that America's long time ally, Hosni Mubarak step down in Egypt.

Experimenting with philosophical notions in a real-world laboratory.

The president has a habit of being inconsistent and indecisive in crucial moments. But is it possible that Mr Obama, through his progressive lens, may feel that a hostile, non-Western actor should be allowed, or more fanatically, has an intrinsic right to acquire nuclear weapons?

Iran will not simply develop a nuclear weapon while the world continues uninterrupted. 

Scenarios probable with an anemic agreement or perpetual negotiations:

1) Israel will respond to a bad agreement by destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. If the Israelis believes they can delay the program by several years, an air assault is likely.

2) The dawn of a nuclear Iran with a new and dangerous geopolitical reach as its neighbors are at the Islamic Republic's mercy. A nuclear arms race begins in the region.

3) Another Jewish holocaust as a result of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran. 

Many political scientists believe Iran to be a 'rational' actor in global affairs. This assumes that Western concepts of 'rational' and 'irrational' are universal, unmitigated by cultural personalities. In the real world, these standards cannot be applied to non-Western actors with dissimilar ideological and theological perspectives. 

It's unwise to allow the Ayatollah to exhibit his interpretation of 'rational' to the region and world. Rational actors must insist that Iran be dissuaded from its nuclear goals.