by Ryan Mauro
Politico's article about what Obama's team thinks of Netanyahu's speech are the talking points for those wish to bury their heads in the sand about the Iran.
U.S. President Barack Obama with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
1. There cannot be more sanctions and sanctions don't work.
The first false rebuttal is contradictory. It maintains that "years of stiff sanctions have failed to halt—or even slow—the progress of Iran's nuclear program." Are we supposed to believe that Iran came to the table out of a desire for American affection?
The Obama Administration itself says that sanctions brought the Iranians to the table. It only stands to reason that sanctions—or at least the threat of much harsher sanctions—will likewise influence their calculations.
The claim that sanctions has failed to impede the nuclear program is unverifiable and almost certainly inaccurate. Sanctions resulted in less revenue, a hampered infrastructure as entities and key personnel had their assets frozen and denial of access to important technology. Iran’s nuclear program has been going on for decades, and sanctions are a reasonable explanation as to why their ultimate ambitions have not been realized.
The officials and experts interviewed by Politico say "more sanctions are not a realistic option." Why not?
There are countless Iranian entities that could be sanctioned by the Treasury Department for involvement in weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, corruption and human rights abuses. The sanctions bill proposed by Congress would incrementally slap different sectors of the Iranian economy with sanctions. The bottom line is that there is plenty left to target.
It is argued that the international community will not participate in tougher sanctions. The sanctions bill is designed to address that very problem by threatening foreign companies doing business in Iran. No successful businessman will choose the Iranian market over the American market if his primary concern is profit.
The response further says that sanctions won't work because the price tag on Iran's program is $100 billion already, proving the regime's determination. This only underscores the point that Iran is dead-set on achieving nuclear breakout capacity. This fact can just as easily be used to question the viability of the reported deal.
2. A nuclear domino effect probably won't happen.
President Obama's own former Secretary of State and likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton disagrees. In 2008, she said the same thing that Netanyahu did at the time. "I can imagine that they [Iran's neighbors] would be rushing to obtain nuclear weapons themselves," Clinton said. She also stated that only a U.S. "security umbrella" might persuade them not to. Iran's neighbors have made it forcefully clear in the past eight years that they don't see the U.S. as reliable, so this isn't an option.
The Middle East nuclear domino has been underway for years. It is widely understood that the Saudis financed the Pakistani nuclear program so they could receive nukes if deemed necessary. Arab leaders privately say that this is exactly what they will do and sometimes hint at it publicly.
The nearing of a nuclear deal has apparently motivated at least two Arab countries to begin developing their own nuclear infrastructure. Saudi Arabia and South Korea just signed a deal for two nuclear reactors and Egypt and Russia agreed to build one last month.
One part of Politico’s reasoning that a nuclear domino effect is unlikely to happen is so ridiculous that it's nearly comical. The article states, "As Iran has demonstrated, developing nuclear arms is very costly, both politically and economically." Well, what has Iran been doing since 1979?
Furthermore, the economic and political cost of developing nuclear weapons would be dramatically less for Iran's neighbors than it has been for Iran. The U.S. will not place sanctions on Saudi Arabia or any of its Gulf partners. Any political blowback will be minimal because everyone will understand that the development of nuclear arms by the Gulf States is a response the Iranian threat. Furthermore, these oil-rich regimes have plenty of money to throw around to finance such programs.
3. The Iranian regime is changing.
This assertion is missing a rather critical element: Evidence. Iran's behavior hasn't changed one iota except that the arms it gives to terrorists are more advanced and now its suppression of freedom has to include internet censorship.
Politico’s analysis treats Iran as if it were a democracy. It says Iran has "strong reformist elements and saw huge political protests in 2009. The 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani was a vote for change and reform against the hardliners."
Rouhani’s election was not equivalent to a general election as this language suggests. Presidential contests in Iran are more like party primaries. His presidential candidacy was approved of by the very same regime that the Green Revolution challenged. The vetting process is so stringent that the Guardian Council only allows a mere two percent of the candidates to run. It is within that small extremist circle that Rouhani appears "moderate."
Moreover, human rights have only gotten worse under Rouhani’s tenure. Either his office is virtually meaningless or he is just another manipulative politician who knew what words to use. BBC News points out that his campaign criticized the regime's bloody crackdown on student protests in 1999, but he condemned those same students at the time.
If he had his way in 1999, the opposition movement would never have reached that point. Here's what Rouhani said at the time:
"At dusk yesterday we received a decisive revolutionary order to crush mercilessly and monumentally any move of these opportunist elements wherever it may occur. From today our people shall witness how in the arena our law enforcement force ... shall deal with these opportunists and riotous elements, if they simply dare to show their faces."
Rouhani's election isn't the fruition of the 2009 Green Movement. He endorsed pro-regime rallies that took place after the Green Revolution was crushed. Rouhani is closer to Khamenei than Ahmadinejad was.
On the nuclear issue, Rouhani has bragged about using deception in negotiations to expand the nuclear program.
The Obama Administration officials and supporters interviewed by Politico in this section point to the age of Supreme Leader Khamenei of 75 years old and reports that he's in bad shape. It paints a dynamic of old "hardliners" like Khamenei declining and "moderates" like Rouhani rising.
Here's how the process of choosing the Supreme Leader works. The filling of this position is decided by the Assembly of Experts whose members are "elected" to eight-year terms. However, all candidacies need to be approved by the Guardian Council. Who picks the members of the Council? The Supreme Leader.
Khamenei's replacement will be like him or even worse. A member of the Assembly of Experts is Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and he is said to be trying to build a coalition in the body to appoint him as successor. He is also said to be close to Khamenei's son, another possible successor.
Mesbah-Yazdi is often referred to as the spiritual guide for former President Ahmadinejad, who is also speculated to be planning a return to politics directly or through allies. Mesbah-Yazdi wrote in 2005 that the “most advanced weapons must be produced inside our country even if enemies don’t like it. There is no reason they have the right to produce special types of weapons, while other countries are deprived of it.”
Another cleric in the city of Qom who is a follower of Mesbah-Yazdi issued a fatwa in 2006 that said it is “only natural” for Iran to build nukes and “for the first time … the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.”
The forecast isn't one of brighter days. It's of the same or possibly even worse days.
4. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will stop Iran.
The Politico article states, "But even after such a [10-year] nuclear deal expires, Iran will remain bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970 … Iran has also pledged to accept additional IAEA monitoring and inspection."
The Iranian regime has a long history of breaking agreements. Iran is already in breach of it.
The text of the treaty says, "States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any States or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations…"
Israel is not a signatory to the treaty but it is a member of the United Nations. Iran's constant genocidal pledges to destroy Israel therefore violate the treaty. Other violations include its threats and use of proxy warfare throughout the region.
Article II of the treaty prevents non-nuclear signatories from pursuing explicit weapons-related work. That's exactly what Iran has done at its Parchin site and elsewhere. The IAEA says Iran continues to fail to provide explanations for evidence showing that it violated the treaty by working on nuclear bombs.
Article III of the treaty requires signatories to work with the IAEA to verify that they are in compliance. Again, the IAEA says that Iran is not doing this. Iran has repeatedly violated this by hiding nuclear sites.
And here's the weakest part of Politico’s statements: Article X of the treaty says signatories "have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." All that is required is a three-month notice.
5. There's no such thing as a better deal.
The Politico article summarizes, "A significantly better deal isn't realistic. Iran will not accept it." Harsher sanctions have not even been threatened, so the confidence in that statement is unwarranted.
The Obama administration itself argues that Iran's nuclear program is subject to a cost-and-benefit analysis. If that is so, then we should threaten to raise the costs. If limited sanctions fomented the interim deal, then the possibility of tougher ones will increase the chances of a viable long-term deal.
It's worth recalling that Iran completely suspended uranium enrichment in the past. The deal's supporters say Iran will never dismantle its nuclear program. That may be true, but recent history shows it is willing to suspend its nuclear activity. Under the Bush administration, Iran suspended its enrichment activities several times.This was done under Supreme Leader Khamenei, who still rules today. Now, Iran faces even greater economic difficulties and is suffering from low oil prices.
Recent history and current economic factors indicate Iran would be willing to settle for much less than it is being offered today. Short-term agreements that suspend enrichment are preferable to long-term deals that limit enrichment.
Avoiding war and achieving a viable deal are goals worth striving towards, but those goals can only be achieved if our negotiating premises are rooted in reality. If these responses published by Politico accurately reflect the beliefs of the U.S. negotiators, then we are misunderstanding the Iranian regime and our diplomacy is doomed to fail with potentially disastrous consequences.
Video: Say No to a Nuclear Iran
Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.
Source: http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/why-obamas-criticism-netanayus-speech-flawed
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment