Beating back an avalanche of conservative opposition for the July 14 P5+1 [including, the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany] nuke deal, President Barack Obama completed an exhausting two-year negotiation with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Opposition forces, led by the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and largely conservatives on Capitol Hill, lost the argument of approving a U.N. Security Council agreement to constrain and monitor Iran’s nuclear activities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu practically stood on his head to defeat the P5+1 agreement that allows the U.N’s Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency to renew inspecting Iran’s nuclear sites. Netanyahu and AIPIC argued that Iran could not be trusted to comply with an agreement designed to stave off nuclear weapons activities for at least 10 years.
Netanyahu’s chief argument, calling Iran an “existential threat” to Israel, stemmed from past rhetoric by former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he threatened in 2005 to “wipe Israel off the map,” hosting a Holocaust deniers’ conference in Tehran in 2006. Netanyahu complains of Ayatollah Al Khamenei’s continued insults and veiled threats, forecasting Israel’s eventual demise. Whether admitted to or not, the international community nailed down, with the hard work of Secretary of State John Kerry, the best possible deal to curtail Iran’s military ambitions, if it has any. Through two-years of brutal negotiations, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohamad Javad Zarif, denied any military applications, insisting Iran only wanted nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. Skeptical of Iran’s claims, the P5+1 negotiated as if Iran were only months away from developing its first A-bomb.
Like the situation in Iraq before the March 20, 2003 Gulf War, accusations flew over Saddam’s alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. When former Secretary of State Colin Powell made his convincing sale to the U.N. Security Council Feb. 6, 2003, the U.S. Congress and many world powers were convinced of Saddam’s dangerous arsenal. Whether the same thing was happening with Iran is anyone’s guess. Former Bush-43 officials hyped Saddam’s nuclear, biologic and chemical weapons threat for nearly two years, starting just after Sept. 11, 2001. Iran’s denials of military applications, like those of Saddam, actually spurred more doubt in the U.S., certainly Israel. But, like Saddam, Iran likes to bluff its way into a better deal, essentially duping the U.S. and world powers into making more concessions. If the U.S. or Israel had any reliable intel, they wouldn’t have caved into the current deal.
Before the Iraq War, IAEA chief inspector Dr. Hans Blix begged the U.S. for more time because he didn’t buy that Saddam had alleged weapons of mass destruction. Bush-43 administration officials had hyped Saddam’s WMD arsenal for so long, they didn’t want to hear Blix’s facts. Invading Iraq March 20, 2003 and toppling Saddam April 10, 2003, has proved disastrous for Iraq and the entire region. Had the Bush-43 White House left Saddam in power and listened to Blix, the Mideast would not be in its current state of chaos. When you consider Obama’s White House policy of regime change in Syria, there’s no lesson whatsoever learned in Iraq: If you topple a Mideast dictator, you open up the floodgates of Islamic terrorism. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced today that Moscow’s sending in troops to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad battle terrorism.
Iran’s Foreign Minister spokeswoman Mazieh Afkham rejected Obama’s declaration of “victory of diplomacy” in getting approval in the U.S. Senate. Afkham insisted Obama “was forced into negotiating” due to the “failure of the U.S. policy of sanctions and threats.” When you consider Iran now gets most international sanctions lifted, for doing little to actually slow their nuclear ambitions, Iran can claim victory over the P5+1, certainly the U.S. Iran’s negotiating position was built off a false premise, hyped in the West, mainly by Israel and U.S. hawks, that it was dangerously close to building an A-bomb. “The U.S. president, fruitlessly, tries to claim the results of the nuclear negotiations, but the truth is . . . the U.S. has no alternative but giving up its excessive demands,” said Afkham. No one has any proof of Iran’s alleged military nuke applications.
White House officials can beat their chests about getting the P5+1 Iran nuke-deal through the U.S. Congress. When you consider Iran gets to sell its oil back on world markets, there’s little the U.S. can claim other that the IAEA is back in the driver’s seat dealing with Iran’s nuke program. Ayatollah Ali Khaemenei already declared he has no intent of restoring normal ties with the U.S., despite allowing the U.K. to reopen its embassy in Tehran. Khaemenei cleverly preserves the war footing with the U.S., knowing that it helps cement his Azeri-Turk stranglehold on power. Keeping the U.S. and Israel as Iran’s mortal enemies consolidates the Mullah-class’s power. Now that Obama claims victory in Iran, he should be urgently reexamining his misguided Syrian policy. If the White House listens to Moscow, they’ll have a willing partner in beating back the Islamic State and other Sunni terror groups.
