by Dan Margalit
The interim deal on
Iran's nuclear program has upgraded the level of discussions of its
significance in the defense establishment, in academia and in joint
seminars for both communities. First because the agreement is important,
and second because Iran experts are unable to reach a consensus on the
deal's meaning for the future of dialogue with Tehran.
The more facts that
come to light from the negotiations in Geneva, the more the agreement
appears to resemble Swiss cheese. There are many holes in the agreement
as well as some serious vagueness. Barack Obama and John Kerry are not
persuading the average American that this was any kind of achievement.
They simply assume that most of the American public are willing to have
their leaders deceive them. This is what the fight is about on Capitol
Hill. In the present round, Israel is not holding back its criticism of
the agreement, but neither is it taking steps against the While House.
Analyzing the
administration's conduct leads to the conclusion -- for which there is
yet no proof -- that Obama has made a decision to reconcile himself to
Iran's nuclearization. Perhaps full nuclearization, perhaps stopping at a
point where Iran is a threshold country that can assemble four nuclear
bombs in a very short period of time. There is no "smoking gun" to prove
this circumstantial belief, but the evidence is getting stronger by the
day.
The weakness of this
decision from the White House's point of view is that Obama is not able
to and does not want to admit it. It represents a collapse of all
America's obligations, and a serious violation of its alliance not just
with Israel, but with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Gulf states and
to a certain extent even Turkey.
Because the
administration refuses to admit that it has decided to live with the
Iranian nuclear program, it is exposed to criticism in the Senate and
House of Representatives, which may yet thwart the White House's
intentions.
The danger persists
even if Iran does not complete the construction of a nuclear bomb and
remains a threshold nation. Because if Iran is that close to a nuclear
bomb, any diplomatic crisis, real or manufactured, any refusal to accept
an ultimatum from Tehran, could serve as a pretext for the ayatollahs
to announce that their country is completing construction of a weapon.
Who under such
circumstances would use military force against Iran? Not Obama's
America. He is a president that many countries disdain. The conflict
erupting at present on a different front, on the open seas near China,
is an interesting example of American foreign policy's quality control.
Except that, in reality, Obama doesn't really care.
He is turning his back
on allies that arose following an imperialist agreement with Britain and
France (with the involvement of czarist Russia) orchestrated by the
diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot.
These men laid the
foundation for the current division of the Middle East, establishing
ruling dynasties under the auspices of the great powers in Saudi Arabia,
Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Obama is responding to America's longtime
allies in the region with a shrug or even worse.
His America is capitulating. The
alliance with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt and Jordan does not
speak to him. It's not just the world that will pay the price. His own
country will too, on his successors' watch.
Dan Margalit
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6523
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment