In trying to sell Congress on the nuclear deal the U.S. and five other world powers struck with Iran over its nuclear program, President Obama is using the same argument that proponents of an almost-concluded trade pact with the Pacific Rim are making — that U.S. credibility is on the line.
If Congress backs away from the plan, “Does the rest of the world take seriously the U.S. ability to craft international agendas, to reach international agreements, to deliver on them in ways that garner the respect and adherence from other countries?”, Obama asked on CNN on Sunday.
That sounded similar to logic espoused by House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in trying to sell skeptical colleagues on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
If those deals can be finished, it “would emphatically say, ‘yes; yes, you can count on the United States,'” Politico quoted Ryan as saying in February. “We will be there. We won’t abandon the field. We will stick up for free enterprise and free people.”
In June, Ryan told National Public Radio that if the deals collapse because of U.S. opposition, Americans are surrendering their global leadership position.
“If we chose not to engage, if we say America shouldn’t bother negotiating trade agreements … then we’re simply saying, ‘We forfeit the leadership role in the world to write the rules’ and we let other countries such as China write the rules instead of us,” he said.
In trying to convince average Americans, as well as members of Congress, on the Iran treaty, Obama said believing that the rest of the world would maintain the restrictive economic sanctions put into place to bring Tehran to the negotiating table is a mistake.
If Congress rejects the deal, the global cohesion around sanctions would “fray” and the rest of the world would assign blame to either Washington or Tehran, he said.
Obama also reiterated a claim he made in discussing the deal in a news conference last month that unfreezing Iranian assets valued around $70 billion would likely fund terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, but that it’s not a “game-changer.”
“The nefarious activities that Iran engages in, whether it’s providing arms to Hezbollah or stirring up destabilizing activities among some of their Gulf neighbors is something that they’ve been able to do consistently at a very low cost,” he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.
“Do we think that with the sanctions coming down, that Iran will have some additional resources for its military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and a threat to our allies?” Obama asked at last month’s news conference. “I think that is a likelihood.
“Do I think it’s a game-changer for them? No.”
