Millard Grimes: Path to peace or uncertainty

During the next few weeks, the fate of the two most important foreign policy changes in recent years will be determined. The results will have significant economic impact.

First, of course, will be the congressional debate on the seven-nation agreement with Iran, reached in Vienna in June, to remove economic sanctions on Iran by Western nations in return for Iran's curtailment of its nuclear power program.

President Obama actually can proceed on the path set by the agreement without the endorsement of Congress, but he obviously prefers to have the support of Congress in order to assure other nations, including Iran, of U.S. willingness to honor and abide by the terms, so laboriously worked out by Secretary of State John Kerry and others at the negotiating table.

The pressure on Republicans and some Democrats to reject the Vienna Accords has been intense, including a barrage of TV commercials and full-page ads in the New York Times.

But indications still are that the Accords will be accepted and carried forth by the other nations, including Iran, where the possible end of economic sanctions was greeted with rejoicing by the general public, which believes more consumer goods will be available to a country struggling to escape its Third World status.

Full implementation of that aspect of the deal depends to an extent on the U.S. Congress, but to approve lifting economic sanctions will work both ways, of course. Iran will benefit from more trade with the U.S. and the other nations, and the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets in those nations, but the U.S. will also benefit from improved trade relations with Iran, mainly in lower costs for oil.

U.S. consumers should soon see gasoline at less than $2 a gallon. European nations will benefit even more since they get more of their oil from Iran and its neighbors. The agreement actually could determine the fate of the European Union and its fragile currency, the Euro, and give a decisive lift to Greece.

Our large oil companies may suffer a decline in profits, but they have enjoyed enormous profits for years since the Iranian Revolution in 1978, when gasoline prices in the United States were about $2.80 a gallon before leveling. The oil companies will still be all right at $2 a gallon. They were hugely profitable when gas was even cheaper.

In the meantime, consumers and industries like airline and trucking firms will benefit greatly, hopefully leading to lower prices for food, travel and other U.S. commodities, some of which have risen in price even while gasoline was dropping in recent months.

So why should Congress reject this plan? The only two nations which have expressed serious objections are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Their concern is that even though this plan clearly handicaps nuclear development in Iran, it does not guarantee that Iran all not one day "have a bomb."

The plan does make it less likely, and in fact if the terms of the agreement are not put in place, Iran could move forward to an early development of a bomb, with no further contact from the U.S. or the other six nations.

Iranians believe, with good reason, that Israel already has a nuclear bomb. They know that Pakistan and India, both neighbors of Iran, have nuclear weapons, and more dangerously, Russia's nuclear arsenal -- the second largest in the world -- is now scattered among several of its former satellite nations, all in easy range of Iran and all with unstable governments.

This is an opportunity for peaceful advancement on several fronts for the U.S., the other participants, and actually for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the entire Middle East. The path will be open for a stronger alliance against ISIL, the coalition of terrorists now in control of much of Syria and Iraq. U.S. opponents of the Vienna Accords need to ask which is the graver threat, the barbaric ISIL or the Iranians, and an honest answer would have to be ISIL.

The second important foreign-policy change is the U.S. relationship to Cuba, which is long overdue and will be possible only with congressional cooperation.

Again, the economic advantage should be stressed but the sanctions, imposed on Cuba first by President John Kennedy in 1963, and then extended by President George W. Bush several years ago, can be removed only by Congress.

Sanctions are intended to punish the Castro government and persuade it to change its policies, but after 53 years, the chief result has been to punish the poorest people of Cuba, which obviously is not the U.S. intention.

Fidel Castro is nearly 90 and his brother is not much younger. Old age will take them out before our sanctions and what will follow is anyone's guess. Given Cuba's history, it is unlikely to be a stable democracy, and most likely will be a period of turmoil.

A stronger relationship with the U.S., now far along, would assure a better chance of stability and progress for a close neighbor and potentially valuable partner.

But the lifting of sanctions is essential and Congress must do that, and the many Republican candidates for president and some Democratic congressmen adamantly adhere to the path U.S. has followed for 53 years, with little evidence of success.

So the US - and indeed, the world community - look forward with hope but apprehension for the next few weeks. The choices seem clear: continuing to conduct at one level or another or the hope of pursuing peace. The people of the Middle East and Cuba would surely choose the path to hope.

Millard Grimes, editor of the Columbus Enquirer from 1961-69 and founder of the Phenix Citizen. is author of "The Last Linotype: The Story of Georgia and Its Newspapers Since World War II."

This story was originally published August 24, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Millard Grimes: Path to peace or uncertainty ."