December 16, 2013
The annual "Death to America" rallies across Iran last month were the largest ever. The outpouring of hate against the United States wasn't cancelled, or even toned down, by the new Iranian president, the purportedly "moderate, reasonable" Hassan Rouhani. Far from it. "Iran's propaganda machine had been working for weeks ahead of the ceremonies to mobilize maximum public participation," reported the BBC Persian service on November 4. The resulting demonstrations were "unprecedented in their scale and scope."
This is the regime that Barack Obama has been so ardent to engage, and that John Kerry was secretly wooing as far back as 2011.
Less than three weeks after Tehran was whipping anti-US hostility to a record high, Kerry concluded an interim nuclear deal in Geneva that was so favorable to the Islamic Republic that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, delightedly claimed victory. As well he might, since the Great Satan and its negotiating partners had, for all intents and purposes, conceded Iran's longstanding diplomatic objective: international recognition of its right to enrich uranium. Kerry denied it, but the text of the deal stipulates -- not once, but twice -- that a final arrangement with Iran will "involve a mutually defined enrichment program."
Not to worry, Kerry assured the deal's critics: He and his fellow negotiators are "resolute" about not letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons. What's more, he added, "Foreign Minister Zarif emphasized that they don't intend to do this, and the Supreme Leader has indicated there is a fatwa which forbids them to do this."
Sound familiar? It wasn't so long ago that Kerry was similarly encouraged by Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad's supposed commitment to reform. When, even more recently, Assad brazenly defied the Obama administration's "red line" by using chemical weapons, Kerry was certainly "resolute" about the need for a forceful response. "Nothing today is more serious," he passionately declared. But the forceful response never came. The administration backed down, weapons inspectors were dispatched instead, and Assad was transformed from an international war criminal to just another unsavory negotiating partner.
With that Syrian fiasco so vivid and fresh, it's not surprising that the nuclear deal with Iran has drawn such strong -- and bipartisan -- skepticism. Obama and Kerry keep insisting that they aren't naïve. If the next six months show that the Iranians aren't serious about abandoning the quest for nuclear weapons, they say, the sanctions relaxed by the Geneva agreement will be reimposed. "We can crank that dial back up," Obama told an interviewer. "We don't have to trust them."
So why on earth is the administration urging Congress not to pass tough new conditional sanctions that would take effect if Iran cheats on the interim deal, or if it refuses afterward to negotiate a permanent deal shutting down its nuclear weapons program for good? Surely the best way to put teeth in the president's threat -- surely the best way to keep the pressure on Tehran -- is to have those new sanctions ready and waiting.
But that assumes that the administration's priority is to ensure that Iran never gets the bomb. It isn't -- not if actions speak louder than words.
Continue reading this article...
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...
The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.