The Precedence of the US-Russian Agreement
The Precedence of the US-Russian Agreement.
Israel, which is familiar with existential military threats, must support the US-Russian agreement, its implications for Iran and the precedence it represents for solving conflicts peacefully
The US-Russian agreement for dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons that was signed provides a new and non-violent way of solving the issue of the country’s chemical weapons, for solving conflicts between states, and more importantly for Israel and the US, has considerable influence on Iran and its nuclear project. Voices that the agreement are already being heard, calling for military action – starting from conservative senators like John McCain and up to Israeli leaders that still like to maintain anonymity. There are advantages to a military action that stem from suspicions that Syria and Russia will use the agreement to buy more time, weaken the US pressure and postpone military action. A military campaign might be dangerous and immoral – it’s easy to begin but difficult to end, since only one side is needed to begin but at least two are needed to agree on an end. It should be remembered that a considerable portion of military conflicts end with negotiations, with agreements and with compromises, similar to non-violent confrontations.
The greatest importance of the US-Russian agreement is in the nature and measure of its affect on the Iranian nuclear project. In order to examine this, the primary characteristics of the US-Russian agreement should be noted. The agreement allows the UN Security Council and the General Assembly to decide on agreed upon decisions. It leads to a relatively short process – several months of disassembling the weapons of mass destruction in Syria’s possession and it is a precedence for other agreements such as with regards to the Iranian issue.
There are those in the US Congress and the Israeli administration that believe that the renouncement of a military campaign by the US president – at least temporarily – weakens the country’s international standing, and strengthens Iran in its continued development of a nuclear bomb. However, other members of government and experts believe that the Russian cooperation reveals the standing and influence of the US, which did not require the use of weapon systems such as M-1s, M-16s and F-16s in order to obtain its objectives. Nevertheless, we must not be naïve and assess that the agreement will be carried out true to form and wording without further US pressure. An examination of the body language of both foreign ministers during a press conference revealed the discomfort of Russian minister Lavrov when the US Secretary of State John Kerry used clear and tough language.
An assessment based on the results of the agreement that was signed requires a certain amount of time, yet based on the assumption that it will be successful, all of those involved in the Iranian issue will yield several lessons that will encourage reaching a similar agreement. US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu prefer to stop Iran without requiring force. Despite its size and its economic resilience to date, Iran would find it difficult to deal with an unofficial alliance between the US and Russia and an agreement similar to the one for Syria’s voluntary liquidation of its unconventional weapons.
The writer of this article consistently supports alternatives to a military campaign. Israel, which has felt and is familiar with existential military threats, must support the US-Russian agreement, its implications for Iran and the precedence it represents for solving conflicts peacefully and with diplomatic processes.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
Leave a comment