It’s virtually impossible to understand why we seem unable in America to have a calm, deliberate discussion of what has come to be known by many as “the deal.” The deal of course is the controversial negotiation concluded recently by several major nations and the government of Iran. No matter where the subject is brought up, arguments are bound to ensue.
Reality is that discussions, or, if you will: negotiations, began about 12 years ago on the subject of getting Iran to stop its march toward development of a nuclear bomb. That was during the Bush-Cheney terms. But weren’t the discussions ultimately conducted between Iran and six other nations? If that’s the case, why, when all the results were trumpeted in the media around the world as something titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action did it seem it was pretty much all done by the US under the overall direction of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry…or at least under the control of those two leaders?
Once announced, and with the need for the agreement to be passed on by Congress, it seemed all hell broke loose, despite some muffled ongoing concerns leading up to the final sessions with Iran. The reasons for all the fireworks are major examples of how government communications to taxpaying publics should not be handled. More than that, there were ongoing unanswered questions as to why much impacted nations neighbor to Iran were not only not included in the “joint” negotiations but clearly left in the dark as to what was going on and openly expressing their resentment. So, when the “deal” was finally struck and boasted, it should have come as no surprise that reactions, accusations and less than calm discussion were the results.
With this kind of an atmosphere, supporters and opponents have squared off almost always angrily, with the President of the United States and equal partner to the debating contenders…or perhaps an unequal partner given his powerful position and unequal access to media and elsewhere at will. But, as chief spokesperson for the JCPOA, he has been clear that he sees any and all opponents as virtual war mongers, asserting that the only alternative to a seal of approval would be war. And it is here that the clash of opinions among his Republican opposition, the nations of Israel and Saudi Arabia who were left totally out of the discussions and many other interest groups have risen to almost unprecedented levels with no calm conclusion either in progress or in sight.
It remains unclear how Congress will ultimately respond as powerful behind the scenes clashes continue or what will be the results internationally if, even after a presidential veto, the issue is left in limbo since we are not the only country involved and could be considered the one out of all in the minority if our side rejects the “deal.”
None of this can be resolved with this discussion here. All I am offering is the need to probe why it all happened as it has, and the conclusion I reach is that it has been poorly handled from the standpoint of maintaining the best channels of communication among all parties who were bound to eventually come down strongly in one direction or another when the final bell rang. And such a discussion is quite appropriate for the pages of this prominent public relations platform.
Among other questions is why could not the powerful President of the United States have offered at least the appearance of indirect inclusion for Israel and the Saudis through ongoing references of interest in their opinions or some other reasonable consultations? I referenced this concern earlier this year in an article that worried “When(Not if)War Comes in the Middle East, Whose Side Do We Defend?” This concern remains given the status quo of the verbal warring sides today.
For now at least, without defining or predicting where it will all lead at the end, it is relevant and legitimate to charge that all the powerful public communications resources of the direct parties involved and the media who should have shouldered their responsibilities more effectively have failed. It is such failures in other times and other arenas that have in fact led to military conflicts that left nothing of benefit anywhere.
What then to do? At a minimum, the President of the United States should take a step back just as he has demanded of those opposing his stance and he should demonstrate respect for his opponents and ask the same of them because of the massive and hardly describable stake involved. Only if the stridency from all directions can be diminished will we be even modestly assured peace can prevail.
It is here that the massive powers of the public relations/media institutions must rise to help define the urgently needed means to achieve communications that must occur immediately.
Perhaps saddest of all is the fact none of the contenders for the American presidency has presented his or her stands in this crucial matter or even offered non-partisan assistance as potential leaders.
* * *
|
Joe Honick is president of GMA International in Bainbridge Island, Wash. |
The ridiculously high prices Americans are paying at the supermarket might influence how—or if—they vote in November.
At a moment in history when there are so many conflicts among peoples here and abroad, let us put our differences aside and celebrate this wonderful season in a spirit of togetherness.
The news announcing the death of Henry Kissinger, the last of the prevaricating politicians and so-called statesmen who stole my future and that of thousands of other young Americans, got me thinking about Walter Cronkite.
Have a comment? Send it to 
No comments have been submitted for this story yet.