Predictably, the Republicans have used every hyperbole in the book to denounce the nuclear accord between the P5+1 led by the United States on one side and Iran on the other -- of course without bothering to read it! But none went as far as our own junior senator from Illinois, Mark Kirk. On July 15, Senator Kirk of Illinois called the deal "the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler," adding that our president wants to "get nukes to Iran," and repeatedly referring to him as Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, the latter insinuation -- an obvious attempt to mislead constituents about the president's religion and loyalties -- is nothing new. Indeed, on that front Senator Kirk needs to take the back seat and leave the driving to Donald Trump. Later on, of course, Kirk backed off, admitting that, driven by anger, he had gone too far.
However, the first part of Senator Kirk's argument deserves more scrutiny. By referring to the agreement as a method of arming an adversary with nuclear bombs, Senator Kirk is making one of two statements: Either he is saying that he knows more about the nuclear technology than Energy Secretary Moniz, or that he considers that the secretary is purposefully misleading the country out of some yet unexplained motive. Given the credentials of Secretary Moniz, an MIT physics professor, it is fairly obvious that the senator does not have a leg to stand on with regard to the first scenario. In fact, this fits well with the Republican rule of ignoring facts that do not fit their narrative. Left with the second possibility as the only plausible implication, one is bound to conclude that Senator Kirk is adopting the beliefs of his extremists' base that one's color of skin is the true test of his patriotism. Sadly, this conclusion is in line with Senator Kirk's contempt and his disrespect for the president of the United States.
Oddly enough, Senator Kirk does not exhibit other racist characteristics. Why has he done so in this case? It is fairly obvious that his position, mirroring the extreme views of Israel's Likud party, is preventing the senator from seeing the national interests of his own country. The senator is apparently convinced that no deal with Iran is a good deal and that a war is the preferred option. Reluctant to consider the facts, and faced with a fait accompli in an actual agreement, he has therefore resorted to racial and religious undertones to justify his inability to see the national interest of his country through the more than 200 pages of a landmark agreement.
The agreement was indeed characterized as that on July 16, 2015 by more than 100 former American ambassadors who have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, in a letter to President Obama that also urged Congress to support it. The letter's conclusion was clear: This deal serves the national interests of the Unites States. This deal was painstakingly negotiated for 20 months, involving our key allies, as well as Russia and China. The deal came to a successful end as a result of the dogged determination of Secretary Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Minister Zarif. Also notable is that it was put together with the direct and continuous involvement of Ernest Moniz, the US Secretary of Energy and one of the foremost nuclear scientists ever to have left MIT to join a US administration. Oddly enough, Senator Kirk and his party find themselves on the same side as the Iranian hardliners who denounced the deal as a sell-out of their national interests. Senator Kirk probably knows better than that. Is it possible that his ideology is preventing him from putting our national interest at the forefront?
Ali Fatemi is Emeritus Professor at DePaul University and Karim Pakravan is a Visiting Associate Professor at DePaul University. They are both members of the board of the National Iranian American Council.