After the break, it will be too late

Political discussion can be frustrating. Especially recently, it seems the conversation has become even more binary than usual.

If the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage was not supported, hate is attributed to the opponents.

If there was disagreement on ObamaCare, it must be due to indifference to the very real pain and plight of poverty.

If the reaction to Ferguson did not echo the public’s outcry, it must be racist.

And now, rejection of the Iran deal. That’s simple — it must be warmongering.

The fact that people disagree with the substance of the agreement, seeing in it weaknesses and flaws, and identify in the deal the possibility of a worse war — that’s not considered. It’s just an immediate dismissive “you prefer war.” To present such a simplistic narrative — it’s either this (bad) deal or war — is divisive. It narrows the discussion. It limits the possibilities of arriving at a more secure and responsible agreement.

Radical regimes call for radical measures. Even in diplomacy, there should be radical diplomacy. Diplomacy is not some excuse for softies, for wimps to be taken for a ride. Diplomacy is to be undertaken to avoid war. A successful and skilled negotiation takes tremendous skill, intuition, savvy and painful compromise. Negotiation is a war of its own kind.

To be effective, radical diplomacy requires no less preparation than war. A different kind of preparation, but no less serious.

As more and more information is being revealed about this Iran deal, there is more and more worry about the safety of America, of Israel, of the world.

It seems like a game changer in the wrong direction. It’s nice to feel relieved in the short term, but I am thinking in the long term. When I read about the 24-day inspection notice, I shudder. When I read about the clause preventing a “sabotage” of Iran’s nuclear facilities — guaranteeing help to a nefarious enemy (Iran) against an attack by an ally (Israel) — I am seriously troubled.