It
works out that US President Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic
achievement, his nuclear deal with Iran, has nothing to do with preventing
Iran from becoming a nuclear power or even with placing restrictions on
Iran’s nuclear activities.
Just weeks after Obama led the
international community in concluding the nuclear pact with Iran, the
Iranian regime filed a complaint with the UN Security Council accusing the
US of committing a material breach of the agreement.The US action
that precipitated the complaint was a statement by White House Press
Secretary Josh Earnest claiming that if Iran violates the deal, “the
military option would remain on the table.”
In making the
statement, Earnest was responding to a hypothetical question regarding
what the US would do if the Iranians breached the deal.
Earnest
explained that not only would the US then consider attacking Iran’s
nuclear installations militarily, but that its “military option would be
enhanced because we’d been spending the intervening number of years
gathering significantly more detail about Iran’s nuclear
program.”
“So when it comes to the targeting decisions,” he
continued, “our capabilities [would be] improved, based on the knowledge
that has been gained in the intervening years through this inspections
regime.”
The Iranians argued that Earnest’s statement was a
material breach of the nuclear agreement because under Iran’s
interpretation of the deal, UN inspectors are barred from sharing
sensitive information they collect during the course of their site
visits.
As Tower Magazine pointed out at the time, Earnest’s
remarks gave the Iranians a justification for refusing to allow UN nuclear
inspectors from entering their nuclear sites. Indeed, Earnest’s remarks
gave Iran a rationale for vacating its signature on the
agreement.
Like the US and the other parties to the agreement, the
Iranians can vacate their signature if they feel their claims against
other parties’ perceived breaches of their commitments are not properly
addressed by the relevant UN agencies. According to Obama, if Iran walks
away from the deal, it will take the mullocracy up to a year to develop
nuclear weapons.
Whereas Iran can use the deal to advance its
nuclear program and then walk away, the US cannot use the deal to prevent
Iran either from advancing its nuclear program or from walking away from
the deal.
Sunday Iran test-fired a new ballistic missile. According
to Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, unlike the Shihab
intermediate-range surface-to-surface missiles that Iran already fields,
the new Emad missile is precision guided. The Wall Street Journal reported
that experts assess its range at 1,300 km.
The missile test is not
a violation of the agreement. Last month US Secretary of State John Kerry
acknowledged in a letter to Senator Marco Rubio that the deal does not
restrict Iran’s ballistic missile program. Rather, Kerry claimed, Iran’s
ballistic missile program is restricted by the Security Council resolution
passed July 20 which calls on Iran “not to undertake any activity related
to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” for
eight years.
In response to Iran’s missile test Sunday, State
Department spokesman John Kirby said the US would take “appropriate
actions” at the UN if the tests violated the
resolution.
Unfortunately, Iran probably didn’t violate the
resolution. Because whether the missile test was a violation or not is
open to interpretation. Iran’s position is that the test is permitted
because, it claims, it has nothing to do with its nuclear program. And
because of the way Obama negotiated the nuclear deal and the Security
Council resolution, Iran’s word is just as good as America’s on this
score.
Moreover, even under the unlikely scenario that the
administration determines that Iran’s missile test violated the Security
Council resolution, such a conclusion will make no difference.
As
Amir Taheri explained in The New York Post, America’s negotiating partners
from the P5+1 view the nuclear deal as little more than a trade deal with
Iran. Since they signed on in July, the Germans have expanded their trade
with Iran 33 percent, making Germany Iran’s third largest trading
partner.
Britain has lifted its restrictions on Iranian
banks.
France has sent a 100-man delegation of salivating
businessmen to Tehran.
China has penned an agreement to build Iran
five nuclear reactors.
Russia has not only agreed to sell Iran the
advanced S-300 air defense system and begun negotiating the sale of Sukhoi
fighter jets, Russia has gone to war in coalition with Iran in
Syria.
Other states, including India, Turkey, Austria and the UAE
are all clamoring for deals in Iran. The question of whether or not Iran
actually abides by the deal’s nuclear limitations is the furthest thing
from anyone’s mind.
Given the circumstances, the idea that Obama’s
much touted “snapback” sanctions will actually be implemented if and when
Iran is caught cheating on the nuclear deal or the restrictions on its
ballistic missile program is a joke.
Kerry admitted to Congress
that the US has given assurances to the Russians and Chinese that in the
event sanctions are re-imposed they will not jeopardize those nations’
trade with Iran.
So sanctions, which Obama himself insisted failed
in the past to prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear program, cannot be
reimposed, even if they are passed in the Security Council.
And
they won’t be passed in the Security Council because no one on the
Security Council is paying attention to whether or not Iran keeps its side
of the agreement. And even if they did pay attention, and decide that Iran
has breached the accord, Iran will simply walk away from the deal with
little to no international response.
In his much cited article
published last week about Obama’s ill-treatment of Israel during the
course of his nuclear talks with Iran, ambassador Dennis Ross wrote that
Obama’s commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was
never straightforward.
The issue of whether the administration
would take all measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons or
would merely seek to contain a nuclear Iran was never settled.
In a
speech at a Washington synagogue last May, Obama insisted that he has a
“personal stake” in ensuring the deal prevents Iran from developing
nuclear weapons because “this deal will have my name on it.”
But as
the deal’s substance and the behavior of the US’s negotiating partners
makes clear, the purpose of the nuclear accord isn’t to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. It is to get Obama off the hook and place the
deal’s opponents in the dock.
By giving Iran the right to walk away
whenever it claims the US has breached the deal, Obama has ensured that
Iran will walk away, and has given himself the means to blame the
Republicans for the deal’s failure.
Just as the Iranians used
Earnest’s statement as a reason for leaving the deal, so they should be
expected to use any limitation the US places on implementing the deal as a
means to vacate their signature and walk away.
Last week we learned
that aspects of the US ’s commitments to Iran under the deal are illegal
under US law. If the Republican Congress tries to force Obama to obey the
law (that he himself signed), Obama will blame the Republicans when the
Iranians respond by abandoning the deal. If the Republicans try to impose
new sanctions on Iran because Iran breaches its commitments, then Iran can
leave the deal.
And Obama will blame the Republicans.
What
this means for Republicans is clear enough.
They must recognize the
deal for what it really is – a political tool to weaken them, not Iran.
Once they understand what is going on, they must refuse to fall into the
trap Obama set for them. Republican mustn’t worry about whether or not
Iran vacates its signature. It is the deal, not any action they may take,
that ensures Iran will walk away.
Moreover, Republicans – and the
deal’s Democratic opponents – must refuse to shoulder the blame when Iran
acts as expected and walks away.
Obama negotiated a deal that
guarantees Iran will become a nuclear power and prevents the US from
taking steps, in the framework of the deal, to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. Obama didn’t do this because he is a bad
negotiator. He did this because his goal was never to prevent Iran from
developing atomic bombs and delivery mechanisms. His goal was always to
blame Republicans (and Israel) for what he had the power to prevent, but
had no interest in preventing.
[The more I learn
about the complexities of the deal Obama struck with Iran, the more
certain I am that Obama is not an ordinary man but an avatar of
evil. df]
|
No comments:
Post a Comment