12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 1/6The Myth of a Better DealFromi magi naryweaponsofmassdestructi ontofantasti cal currencyuni ons,magi cal thi nki ngi nforei gnpol i cyl eadstonothi ngbutcatastrophe. Let snotdothesamewi thIran.AUGUST10, 2015 BYSTEPHENM. WALTForeign policy is serious business, because getting it wrong has real consequences. When countriesconduct foreign policy in a cavalier or incompetent way, real human beings lose their lives or end upmuch poorer than they would otherwise have been. In extreme cases, states that mismanage relationswith the outside world end up completely isolated and maybe even conquered and occupied. This israrely, if ever, a pleasant experience.Thats why it is so surprising when allegedly serious people rely on various forms of MagicalThinking when they talk about foreign affairs. Like FP contributor Jeffrey Lewis, by magicalthinking, I mean analysis and prescriptions resting on unrealistic assumptions, unspecified causalrelationships, inapt analogies, a dearth of supporting evidence, and wildly nave optimism. People whodo this are like the scientists in that old cartoon whose blackboard solution to a thorny problemconsists of writing, And here a miracle occurs.What sort of thinking do I have in mind?The most obvious example of magical thinking in contemporary policy discourse, of course, is themyth of a better deal with Iran. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, opponents of the JCPOAkeep insisting additional sanctions, more threats to use force, another round of Stuxnet, or ifnecessary, dropping a few bombs, would have convinced Iran to run up the white flag and give theUnited States everything it ever demanded for the past 15 years. The latest example of such dubiousreasoning is the New York Timess David Brooks, who thinks an agreement where Iran makes most ofthe concessions is a Vietnam-style defeat for the United States and imagines that tougher U.S.negotiators (or maybe war) would have produced a clear and decisive victory.12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 2/6Never mind that while the United States ramped up sanctions, Iran went from zero centrifuges to19,000. Never mind that there was no international support for harsher sanctions and that unilateralU.S. sanctions wouldnt increase the pressure in any meaningful way. Never mind that attacking Iranwith military force would not end its nuclear program and only increase Irans interest in having anactual weapon. Never mind that the deal blocks every path to a bomb for at least a decade. And nevermind that the myth of a better deal ignores Diplomacy 101: To get any sort of lasting agreement, ithas to provide something for all of the parties.Instead of serious analysis, opponents of the Iran deal are just imagining that there was a secret spell,magic wand, or incantation that would have somehow produced a miraculously better result. Which iswhy they cannot in fact explain how their imaginary better deal could ever be obtained.It is not surprising that opponents of the deal are relying on unspecified miracles to make their case:Its their standard operating procedure. As U.S. President Barack Obama correctly said in his Aug. 5speech at American University, opponents of the deal are mostly the same groups and individuals whoeither dreamed up or helped sell the boneheaded idea of invading Iraq. It wasnt just their fairy talesabout Iraqi WMD and Saddam Husseins alleged links to al Qaeda that led Bush and the country astray,it was their utterly fabulist belief that invading Iraq would somehow transform the Middle East into asea of pro-American democracies. This was magical thinking at its worst, because it ignored botheverything we know about how genuine democracy gets created and paid zero attention to theconditions in the country we were about to take over. Convinced that military power was a magic wandthat could do almost anything, they assumed the invasion would produce a fantastic result at little orno cost. They are as wrong now as they were back then.12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 3/6The United States is hardly the only country that has succumbed to magical thinking, of course.Europes leaders fell victim to it when they created the euro in the 1990s, blithely ignoring the manycritics who pointed out that the conditions for a workable currency union did not exist. The eurosadvocates convinced themselves a common currency would magically turn Greeks into industriousGermans and Germans into free-spending Greeks and that eurozone members would meet theirvarious obligations in an honest and forthright way. If by chance some country cheated or economicstorm clouds gathered (as they did in 2008), these magicians assumed European countries wouldsuddenly abandon deep-seated national feelings and quickly create the institutions needed to makethe euro work. Presto! In short, they assumed the euro would magically succeed no matter what, andsuch reasoning continues today, in the assumption that continued austerity will magically put Greeceback on its feet and enable it repay all its debts. That is one heck of a rabbit to pull out of a small andthreadbare hat.Fortunately, some of our adversaries seem equally prone to their own forms of magical thinking. MaoZedong was a plentiful source during his years in power, and the Chinese people suffered mightilyfrom idiocies like the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. Ditto Gorbachevs belief thatglasnost and perestroika could fix the accumulated problems of the former Soviet Union and somehowkeep the whole ramshackle enterprise from imploding. U.S. leaders have succumbed to delusions oftheir own over the years (e.g., the domino theory, McCarthyism, etc.) but fortunately not on quite thesame scale.Today, the leaders of the Islamic State appear to genuinely believe that their puritanical and intolerantperversion of Islam will capture a wide following throughout the Muslim world and that beheadings,rapes, and other forms of violence will make them broadly popular (as opposed to attracting mostlymarginalized misfits). They also seem to think their weak, landlocked, and Sunni-based caliphate isgoing to expand like a prairie fire and eventually spread into Europe and beyond. Such beliefs will nodoubt cause a certain amount of trouble in various places, but their long-term goals are a fantasy thatwill never come to pass.12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 4/6How can you spot magical thinking when you hear it? Jon Stewarts disquisition on bullst from hisfinal show is a good start, and I fully endorse his advice that when you smell something, saysomething. Heres a quick guide on how to hone the necessary olfactory instincts.First, when a leader, policy analyst, or foreign-policy organization suggests you support a policy thathas never been done before and says that it will be easy, your nostrils should start twitching. Policyinnovation does occur, of course, and history doesnt always repeat itself. Occasionally, a governmenttries something unprecedented, and it works out really, really well. Nonetheless, when somebody saysthey are going to do something challenging and achieve results that nobody has ever managed toaccomplish before, you should read the fine print. Carefully.Second, when somebody says theyve got a great solution to a thorny problem but wont tell you whatthat solution is, its either a sign that they have no plan at all or that they believe they have rare powersthat will enable them to do what mere mortals cannot. When Donald Trump says he has a foolproofplan to defeat the Islamic State but wont say what it is, its either just a boldfaced lie or evidence hethinks he is a magician who can come up with a plan that has somehow escaped the entire U.S.government, even though he knows next to nothing about national security policy, the Islamic State,or the Middle East more generally.Third, magical thinking invariably depends on a whole bunch of optimistic assumptions. To pull off amiracle, you need to assume that all will go exactly as planned, that opponents will react exactly as youexpect, that unintended consequences will not occur, and that the ball will always take a home-teambounce. The corollary to this mode of reasoning is to assume the worst if the prescribed action is nottaken. Policy magicians do this sleight of hand in order to convince you that taking their advice willproduce a miraculous success, but rejecting it will lead to a terrible tragedy.Fourth, and following from the last point, a good miracle promises something wonderful for little or nocost. (The invasion of Iraq will pay for itself! The troops will be home by Christmas!) Advocates ofU.S. military intervention routinely use this ploy, focusing solely on the supposed upsides andstudiously ignoring the potential risks. Most of us have learned to discount anyone who promises ussomething for nothing, and that instinct is especially useful when it comes to foreign policy.12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 5/6Finally, a lot of magical thinking assumes that the world is poised on a delicate knifes edge and thatsmall inputs will have far-reaching effects. In this view, a tiny reduction in the U.S. defense budget oroverseas military presence will embolden enemies everywhere, dishearten all of our allies, and triggera rapid cascade of setbacks and retreats, leaving the United States isolated and vulnerable (if notutterly defeated). But by a similar magical logic, very small increases in defense spending, or a singlesuccessful military campaign, will discomfit enemies far and wide, reassure allies in every corner ofthe world, restore credibility and revitalize deterrence, and guarantee generations of lasting peace. Orat least until the next challenge emerges, when another dose of magical thinking will be supplied.People like a good fantasy, which is why Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Game of Thrones are sopopular. In these works of fiction, magical powers and miraculous events are central. But there are nowands, rings, wizards, or dragons in the real world, just a complicated set of policy issues and manycomplex interactions between a wide array of self-interested actors, some of whom have realcapabilities of their own. In the rough-and-tumble world of international politics, states achievewealth, influence, and foreign-policy success by generations of hard work, careful analysis, smartdecisions, and (if they are lucky) some amount of good fortune. To obtain these things, successfulstates create political institutions that can resolve conflicts, learn from past errors, and maintain a firmgrasp on reality. Letting national decisions be shaped by unrealistic fantasies guarantees trouble, andeven a country as powerful and secure as the United States pays a price when it allows magicalthinking to shape national policy.Photoillustration by FPMORE FROM FOREIGN POLICYBY TABOOLAOBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY SUMMED UP IN ONE QUOTETHIS IS A HILLARY CLINTON CARTOON12/8/2015 TheMythofaBetterDeal|ForeignPolicyhttps://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/10/themythofabetterdealirannukewmdsiraq/ 6/6THE BOMB DIDNT BEAT JAPAN STALIN DIDQUOTE OF THE DAY: AN ARMY GENERAL ON THE ODIOUS AMERICAN WAY OF LOSING WARS82ND AIRBORNE GENERAL SHIPPED HOME FROM AFGHANISTAN UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONCHUCK SCHUMERS DISINGENUOUS IRAN DEAL ARGUMENT