A message from Netanyahu to Barack Obama and John Kerry and the European international community:
But Kerry and Obama have a very different definition of “bad” than Netanyahu, because their goals are—well, what are their goals, really? To pretend that Iran is a sincere player interested in peace? To suck up to the European international community and show how weak and docile the US has become? To empower Iran? To screw Israel? To get some more Nobel Peace Prizes? All of the above?
As Paul Mirengoff writes at Powerline
Here is what Iran will not do pursuant to the agreement. It will not permanently stop its uranium enrichment, close its Arak and Fordo nuclear facilities, or ship its already 3.5 percent–enriched uranium outside of the country.
Moreover, says Benjamin Weinthal, “there is no definitive method of verification to ensure that Iran’s clerical regime — a notoriously deceptive group — will comply with an agreement.” The West’s easing of economic sanctions will be verifiable; Iran’s “temporary freeze” will be extremely difficult to verify. Recall our experience with North Korea.
Finally, the “freeze,” if any, will be temporary. Iran could “unfreeze” its program at any time. A comprehensive sanctions regime, on the other hand, will be exceedingly difficult to restore.
To pursue this wonderful deal, as Jonathan S. Tobin points out (and please read the whole thing), the Obama/Kerry team had to break some promises:
The president and Secretary of State John Kerry promised [the American people and U.S. allies] that there would be no move to dismantle the economic sanctions that had been implemented against the Islamist regime for anything short of an agreement that would end Tehran’s nuclear threat. But it as it headed back to round two of the reconstituted P5+1 nuclear talks today in Geneva, the administration is steering in exactly the direction it said it would never contemplate.
We already know that the promises of Obama and Kerry mean about as much as the promises of the government of Iran—which is to say they mean absolutely nothing. But somehow the U.S. is trusting the Iranians to comply with this? And Obama and Kerry are thinking that this “finely calibrated effort” will serve to “coax the Iranians back from the brink”? With no way to check to see whether the Iranians are cooperating with their very small end of the bargain, while dismantling the very thing that led the Iranians to the negotiating table in the first place?
It’s incomprehensible—that is, if you think that Obama and Kerry have our interests, or the world’s, or Israel’s, in mind. What is their true motivation? Tobin writes, “the administration’s real priority with Iran is to avoid having to take action, not stopping the threat of an Iranian bomb.” That resonates with me, but I think their secondary goal is to curry favor with the appeasement-loving international community in Europe, as well as their leftist friends at home. They are more than willing to sacrifice Israel’s security in the process. And John Kerry is the perfect man for the job.
Oh, and this would just be the official lifting of sanctions. The administration has been quietly undermining them for quite some time.
[ADDENDUM: Netanyahu: "Israel is not obliged by this agreement and will do everything it needs to defend itself, to defend the security of its people."
And this would be a tiny bit reassuring---that is, if we could believe it is true, which we can't (I should include that disclaimer in every sentence about the Obama administration): "a senior [Obama] administration official made clear that only ‘reversible’ sanctions would be eased.”]
[ADDENDUM: More from Kerry on a different, but highly related, subject:
"Failure of the talks [with the Palestinians] will increase Israel’s isolation in the world,” Kerry said. “The alternative to getting back to the talks is a potential of chaos. I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?”
“I believe that if we do not resolve the issues between Palestinians and Israelis; if we do not find a way to find peace, there will be an increasing isolation of Israel. There will be an increasing campaign of delegitiization of Israel that’s taking place on an international basis. That if we do not resolve the question of the settlements and who lives where and how and what rights they have; if we don’t end the presence of Israeli soldiers perpetually within the West Bank, then there will be an increasing feeling that if we cannot get peace with a leadership that is committed to nonviolence, you may wind up with leadership that is committed to violence.”
Contemplate that statement. I don’t really know what the most ludicrous and pernicious part of it is, there are so many to choose from. But I think it just might be his reference to “a leadership that is committed to nonviolence.” Those Palestinian leaders, disciples of Gandhi.]