Let's say those like Bill Kristol and Tom Cotton who are leading the "kill the deal" charge were to get what the say they want: Congress intervenes to make it impossible for the President to conclude a final agreement with Iran. What exactly do the hawks gain? We have to go beyond their explicit statements, including Cotton's "a few days bombing" remarks, to figure out the scenarios that, realistically, could unfold if the deal collapses due to Congress.
1. How likely is it that the partners will keep sanctions on?
As I've blogged already here, I think that is very unlikely sanctions unity will be preserved. European businesses, and others, are chomping at the bit for the economic opportunities that will come from removal of sanctions. Since the point of sanctions is to bring Iran to the table, and since the Congress has basically kicked over the table, why would the Europeans and others want to continue the sanctions; since Obama wanted a diplomatic solution, too, he would have zero credibility in trying to continue a united front on sanctions. The Europeans and others removing sanctions will end Iran's economic isolation. In this sense, Iran will gain from the deal being killed by Congress; it will get much of the economic benefit of a deal, can blame its collapse on the US legislative branch, and continue to behave as it has. If I were the President of the United States, and Congress undermined me this way, I would gladly add my vote to the others in favor of removing the Security Council sanctions actions. This is hardly the scenario that Kristol and company would want, if they really care about Israel's security and US interests in curbing Iran's irresponsible behavior as a regional power.
2. Would Israel now have a free hand (i.e. legitimacy, including US acquiescence) to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities?
Maybe this is what Kristol et. al. want, to give Netanyahu the go ahead to attack. Yet how plausible is it that? Netanyahu has been trigger-happy for a long time; from what I can glean, admittedly some of it from private conversations, the biggest restraint on his actions has not been the US generally speaking but Israel's own security and intelligence establishment. The reason is a fact that is well-known to informed people: using conventional weapons to attack Iran's facilities is unlikely to set back the nuclear program more than a few months, given how these facilities have been hardened and located. And that's assuming that the attack is perfectly executed. On the other hand, there are reasons to believe that Iran would consider such an attack as an act of war, with very serious consequences for Israel (and especially if something went wrong and there were considerable civilian casualties.) But would Netanyahu have enhanced international legitimacy to order the attack in the wake of Congress killing a diplomatic solution? Hardly, since Netanyahu notoriously egged Congress on to stop the deal, he would be perceived as certainly having himself to blame (and definitely not Iran) for needing to move forward with the non-diplomatic "solution". For the same reason, Obama would have legitimacy in threatening to foil any Israeli attempt to attack, and in doing so, if it came to that.
3. Is what the hawks want for the US to attack Iran? The above analysis, and brutal candor of Tom Cotton's remarks about a few days of US bombing doing the trick, seem to point to this outcome as the real aim. For a while I was tempted to that view of their intentions. But think a little harder. Barack Obama is President of the United States, not Tom Cotton. It is inconceivable that, believing fervently in a diplomatic solution, President Obama would attack Iran, in the circumstances where his own Congress not Iran frustrated that solution. If that weren't enough, there is the small point, which Senator Cotton didn't mention, but I keep bringing up, that conventional ordnance wouldn't likely do the job, and the US would need to use tactical nukes. (Given the kind of fellow that Tom Cotton is, I doubt he would blink an eyelid at starting a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East). So if they want this outcome the hawks would have to believe that 1) the next President of the US will be someone like Tom Cotton (some want Cotton himself to run but 2016 is out of the question); 2) that even though unrestrained by multilateral sanctions or a diplomatic solution, Iran would fail to accomplish its supposed nuclear aims in the breathing space while Obama is still President, thus preserving the opportunity for a future Cotton-like President to bomb Iran back to the pre-nuclear age.
4. So are the hawks just stupid?
You might think so, if you follow my reasoning above in working out the possible scenarios that would follow from Congress killing the deal, as Bill Kristol is instructing them to do. But that would be not giving them the credit of intelligence. The achievements that will come from Congress killing the deal have nothing to do with US and Israeli security. But, one may speculate, they could still mean a lot to Kristol et al. The first win is depriving their real-arch enemy Barack Obama of the legacy of a diplomatic triumph. The second, maybe even more important to them, is giving Netanyahu back his full stature as an Israeli leader. Netanyahu who will be able to claim that, against all odds, he beat not just poor Bougie Herzog but the President of the United States! He is thus the natural leader or protector of the Israeli people. (At least until you start really to use your brain-see all of the above). Kristol is one of those Straussians who stopped reading Plato's Republic where justice was defined as doing good to friends and harm to enemies-which means he is really a Schmittean (see my book Leo Strauss Man of Peace, ch. 2 http://www.amazon.com/Leo-Strauss-Peace-Robert-Howse/dp/1107427673.) Forget Iran, America, and Israel: the likely enemy here is Obama and the friend is Netanyahu.
