The worm turns on Iran: Richard Baehr
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=15337
U.S. President Barack Obama has proudly declared that the Iran nuclear deal was the signature achievement of his second term in office, and his key foreign policy accomplishment. What Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act) was for his first term, the Iran nuclear deal was for his second. And much like Obamacare, time has not healed the wounds of the debate over the Iran deal or made the “accomplishment” any more popular.
It should be no surprise that Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction by an overwhelming margin (over 70% believe this) or that the Iran deal has become less popular over time. We are in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Republicans routinely skewer the president on both domestic issues and foreign policy — particularly regarding the chaotic nature of the situations in Libya, Syria and Iraq, and the emergence of the Islamic State group, which has led to the greatest human disaster in the Middle East in decades and Europe’s greatest refugee crisis in 70 years.
Every presidential debate involves several if not all the Republican contenders denouncing the Iran deal as one of the worst ever negotiated, and one that — given its status as an executive agreement rather than a treaty — is subject to immediate termination upon a new president taking office. The Democrats — meaning Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — almost never discuss foreign policy, since the energy in the Democratic race has been supplied by Sanders and his supporters, and their agenda is almost exclusively domestic (other than cutting defense spending). Both Sanders and Clinton supported the Iran deal, as did almost all Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate, choosing loyalty to their president over any realistic appraisal of the merits of the agreement (giveaway) negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and State Department official Wendy Sherman.
The most recent public opinion polling on the Iran deal by the Gallup organization shows 57% opposed and 30% in support. This is by far the widest margin favoring the opposition to the deal since the talks began and since the deal was struck. Barely half of Democrats (51%) support the deal, and only 9% of Republicans do. Independents oppose the deal by almost the identical percentage as the entire national survey, 53% to 30%. Only 14% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Iran.
Again, this should be no surprise — the agreement is routinely condemned in the debates in one party for the nomination — the one which has attracted far more voters and media interest so far. Democratic presidential candidates and the Obama administration itself have been making almost no effort to defend it.
The president and his administration have also been on defense almost since the moment the deal was struck. The supposed “new Iran” which was ready to join the community of nations and become a more moderate, responsible regional power, has been anything but. The president appeared to believe that a stronger, more confident Iran, could achieve a rough balance of power with the Sunni Arab states, and this would enable the United States to further disengage from the area. The president seems to believe that the world is better off and more likely to resolve its disputes when the United States is removed from the picture. Somehow this balance of power arrangement in the region would also be stable and peaceful. It is difficult to choose the right word to characterize such a belief in everything just working out in this part of the world — but it is somewhere between naivete and lunacy.
The seizure of an American ship by the Iranians, and the humiliating picture of our captive sailors with their hands over their heads, was probably the single worst pubic relations disaster for the administration. But anyone following the recent news on Iran would also be aware of their ballistic missile tests and their
agreement to purchase $8 billion of military equipment from Russia, including specific missiles and weapons prohibited by prior Security Council resolutions. Whether the United States will take action in the Security Council (refusing to OK the arms deal) is not at all clear, since the administration has effectively given Iran a pass on every other violation of existing agreements since the nuclear talks became serious. Iran has stepped up its military engagement in Syria, with its own forces, Hezbollah troops and Iraqi soldiers, now buttressed by Russian air strikes. This appears to have changed the momentum on the battlefield in favor of the Assad regime, which has been expanding its area of control, and slaughtering the opposition forces, our erstwhile allies. The Iranians are also stepping up their activities in Yemen.
As Mortimer Zuckerman summarized in a recent article, Iran is living with the terms of the nuclear agreement where it benefits them — over $100 billion in funds released, and economic sanctions removed, and flaunting it where it chooses to.
One argument the administration made in support of the nuclear deal was that the agreement would provide an opening for strengthening the “moderates” in Iran at the expense of the hardliners. Unfortunately, this was a total misreading of where the power resides within Iran, deal or no deal. The Iranians have never formally adopted the deal, and nothing has changed in terms of how the political processes work within the country. The ruling mullahs, as is their prerogative in this and every prior election, have invalidated the candidacy of roughly 99% of the so-called moderates who had sought to run for office. As The New York Times, usually a reliable mouthpiece for promoting the Obama administration, noted in a recent editorial.
“Last week, nine reformist political parties complained that the council had approved only 30 of the 3,000 moderates who registered, and urged top leaders to reverse the disqualifications.”
One other bit of evidence that Iran has not only not changed but, if anything, doubled down on some of its most problematic behavior is the constant refrain since the agreement was struck that the State of Israel must be eliminated. This should come as no surprise, given that Iran has become the world center of anti-Semitic Holocaust denial. One new development is Iranian activity in Judea and Samaria, and greater coordination with Hamas in Gaza and ISIS forces in the Sinai Peninsula.
The obvious conclusion on what the Iran deal has meant so far is that it has provided a big war chest for Iran to become a more belligerent player in the region, and expanded its horizons for opposing what heretofore might have been regarded as American interests. The Obama administration appears incapable of criticizing Iran or taking any action against it. Most important is that the deal between the two countries be preserved — it is, after all, Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. Iran has clearly figured out that it can push on many fronts without drawing any American response.
This pattern has also been seen in the administration’s actions to preserve the fiction that Obamacare was a smoothly functioning system since its adoption in 2010 and significant implementation began in the fall of 2013. The administration unilaterally changed the rules of the legislation if they were proving politically problematic to some domestic constituency.
On Iran, the Obama team now chooses to ignore Iran’s provocation and continues to mouth the bromides about mothballing Iran’s nuclear program for 10 to 15 years. The administration chose not to seek to negotiate a broader agreement with Iran that might have constrained Iranian behavior in all the other spheres in which the nation is a problem actor. Donald Trump, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, always touts his book, “The Art of the Deal.”
Whether a president can use such a guide the way a business leader might is not at all clear. But the Iran deal is confirmation of the advice one gives to a player in a poker game — if after 10 minutes you can not figure out who at the table is the sucker, you’re it.
Iran knew who it was dealing with, and the American desperation to get a deal, any deal, signed. They found the sucker at the table immediately.
Comments are closed.
