by Clifford D. May
"America cannot do a damn thing."
A banner displaying that slogan
adorned the stage of an elegant mausoleum in Tehran where Iranian Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared last week. Negotiations to conclude a
deal ending Western sanctions on the Islamic republic, the world's foremost
sponsor of terrorism, in exchange for a verifiable halt to its nuclear weapons
program, are now in a critical phase with a new round of talks to begin Monday
in Geneva. At this moment, it would make sense for Iran's rulers to soothe and
reassure their American interlocutors. Why are they provoking and taunting them
instead?
Because they can. Because they are
convinced that the U.S. government is as feckless and self-deluding today as it
was when "America cannot do a damn thing" was first proclaimed, 35 years ago
this fall, by Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, after
his followers seized the American Embassy in Tehran and took the diplomats
working there hostage.
Doing so was not just a violation of
international law. It was a casus belli -- an act that unquestionably would
have justified going to war against the fledgling Islamic republic. Instead,
U.S. President Jimmy Carter launched a rescue attempt that failed. After that,
he utilized diplomacy to no effect.
Khomeini would go on to hold
America's diplomats hostage for 444 days, the remainder of Carter's tenure,
releasing them only as Ronald Reagan was entering the White House. An important
lesson was taught: When the threat of force is credible, the use of force often
becomes unnecessary.
But teaching is not synonymous with
learning. At the mausoleum last week, the current supreme leader triumphantly
told Iran's uniformed, religious and political elites that the military option
President Barack Obama has often said is "on the table" is now in the trash bin
of history. A "military attack is not a priority for Americans now," he said.
"They have renounced the idea of any military actions." That he believes this
represents a defeat for the U.S. and a victory for the Iranian revolution goes
without saying.
In recent days, developments have
bolstered his analysis. For example, on May 27, Obama announced the withdrawal
of American troops from Afghanistan, a conflict he once called a "necessary
war" that he intended to win but which he now is content merely to "wind down."
(Would you really be surprised if, sometime after the next American
presidential election, the Taliban returned to power?)
A day later, Obama was at West Point
disconnecting the dots linking Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Libya,
Mali, Kenya, Pakistan, India, Nigeria and so on. After all these years, he
appears not to see the big picture: a global jihad against the West with
various actors -- Iran and al-Qaida most prominent among them -- competing to
lead it.
Next, the president released five
senior Taliban officials, all of whom have ties to al-Qaida, in exchange for an
American soldier who had abandoned his post on June 30, 2009 and was
subsequently taken prisoner by those it was his duty to fight. Obama might at
least have made this deal with regret, acknowledging that a steep price was
being paid, both by the U.S. and, almost certainly, by those Afghans who have
supported the American mission in their country. Instead, he held a celebration
in the Rose Garden. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, exulted that it
was "an extraordinary day for America ... a joyous day."
It needs to be emphasized: "Leave no
soldier behind" is a commendable principle. But, like most principles, it is
neither absolute nor inviolable. To prove I'm right try this thought
experiment: If the Taliban had said they would trade Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl not for
five Guantanamo Bay detainees but just one -- and that one was Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attack, would Obama have
taken the deal? What if the Taliban had asked for no detainees but a tactical
nuke, or chemical weapons, or even just a dozen Apache helicopters? Would
anyone say that Obama had no choice but to agree -- because he could not leave
Sgt. Bergdahl behind?
Other evidence that Khamenei has no
doubt been mulling: In Syria, Obama drew a red line, then erased it, then cut a
diplomatic deal that saved dictator Bashar Assad, whose regime he had vowed
must end. Last week, Robert Ford, who months ago resigned as American ambassador
to Syria, acknowledgedthat he had done so
because he could no longer support the administration's inept and damaging
policies.
As if to illustrate his point,
Secretary of State John Kerry respectfully asked Hezbollah, Iran's
Lebanon-based terrorist proxy, to help bring the war in Syria "to an end." And
of course Hezbollah will -- so long as the war ends with them as winners, and
the U.S. diminished.
Khamenei also saw the Obama
administration decide last week to support the Palestinian "unity" government,
which means American taxpayers will be funding Hamas, a designated terrorist
organization, one to which Iran has sent money and weapons, one openly committed
to a genocidal war against Israel, America's most reliable ally.
Going back further, the supreme
leader knows that despite many carrots and a few sticks, U.S. negotiations with
North Korea eventually ended with the hermit kingdom becoming nuclear-armed.
The American diplomats who got beaten have either been promoted or given
prestigious academic positions.
For all these decisions and failures
there are explanations and justifications aplenty. But there also is a pattern.
America's enemies and allies perceive it. And they are responding.
Clifford D. May is president of
the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on
national security, and a foreign affairs columnist for The Washington
Times.
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8679
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment