Right now, it's beginning to look as if President Obama will end up deserving the Nobel Peace Prize he was so prematurely awarded in 2009.
Perhaps you recall how, during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Obama's opponents treated his expressed willingness to speak with the leaders of unfriendly countries such as Cuba and Iran as a sign of immaturity.
"Irresponsible and frankly naive" was how Hillary Clinton put it.
Joe Biden said it was important for an inexperienced president not to get played by crafty foreigners.
Obama was unrepentant. "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of [the Bush] administration," he said, "is ridiculous."
And so it was. Only ridiculous people talk that way now. With hindsight, it's become clear that Obama wasn't simply repudiating the GOP's melodramatic "Axis of Evil" world view, but expressing his own considerable self-regard.
Also he was expressing his confidence in America as he sees it through his unique personal history as a kind of inside-outsider, capable of being more than ordinarily objective about our place in the world. When you're the most powerful economic and military power on the earth, he keeps saying with regard to the Iran deal, it's important to act like it: strong, calm and confident. Able to take risks for peace because your strength is so overwhelming.
If Ronald Reagan could reach verifiable arms agreements with the Soviet Union, he told the New York Times's Thomas Friedman, a country that posed "a far greater existential threat to us than Iran ever will," then dealing with the Iranians is "a risk we have to take. It is a practical, common-sense position."
As we saw in 2003, any damn fool can start a Middle Eastern war. And while hardly anybody in the United States wants one, even Iranian hard-liners should have no doubt who would win such a conflict.
"Why should the Iranians be afraid of us?" Friedman asked.
"Because we could knock out their military in speed and dispatch if we chose to," Obama said.
That's the same reason Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and his U.S. congressional allies) need to cool it with the Chicken Little rhetoric. Obama thinks it's "highly unlikely that you are going to see Iran launch a direct attack, state to state, against any of our allies in the region. They know that that would give us the rationale to go in full-bore, and as I said, we could knock out most of their military capacity pretty quickly."
Of course, Netanyahu knows that perfectly well. But here's the kind of thinking he and his allies on the evangelical right really object to:
"Even with your adversaries," Obama said,"I do think that you have to have the capacity to put yourself occasionally in their shoes, and if you look at Iranian history, the fact is that we had some involvement with overthrowing a democratically-elected regime in Iran. We have had in the past supported Saddam Hussein when we know he used chemical weapons in the war between Iran and Iraq, and so ... they have their own ... narrative."
Demonizing Iran serves Netanyahu's short-term political purposes. Ditto Republican presidential candidates. But Obama had a wider audience and a longer view in mind. GOP war-talk makes it easier for Democrats to support him, anyway. Therefore, much of what he said was directed over the heads of his domestic audience.
"Iran will be and should be a regional power," he told Friedman. "They are a big country and a sophisticated country in the region. They don't need to invite the hostility and the opposition of their neighbors by their behavior. It's not necessary for them to be great to denigrate Israel or threaten Israel or engage in Holocaust denial or anti-Semitic activity. Now that's what I would say to the Iranian people."
He also focused upon the common enemy:
"Nobody has an interest in seeing [the Islamic State] control huge swaths of territory between Damascus and Baghdad ... . That's not good for Iran."
Indeed not. More than the Turks, more than Saudi Arabia, more than anybody but the Kurds, Iranian forces are fighting ISIS on several fronts.
The president's words were grudgingly noted in Tehran. In his own carefully crafted speech expressing guarded blessings for the arms control agreement, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei assured hard-liners that he hadn't gone soft on America.
However, he also alluded to Obama's conciliatory remarks.
"He mentioned two or three points, but did not confess to tens of others," Khamenei complained.
Which is how conversations begin.
This deal isn't the end. But it's an excellent beginning — of what remains to be seen. Iran has essentially purchased anti-invasion insurance, while the U.S. and its allies have bought relative stability in the Persian Gulf.
Could things go wrong? Things can always go wrong.
But there's always time to start a war.