Surprise, surprise: Iran deal hasn’t softened the hardliners
The NY Times observes:
Anyone who hoped that Iran’s nuclear agreement with the United States and other powers portended a new era of openness with the West has been jolted with a series of increasingly rude awakenings over the past few weeks.
On Tuesday, the eve of the 36th anniversary of the student takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran, state television announced the arrest of a Lebanese-American missing for weeks ”” after he had been invited here by the government. He has been accused of spying.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, said the “Death to America” slogan is eternal. New anti-American billboards in Tehran include a mockery of the Iwo Jima flag-raising photograph that symbolized Marine sacrifice in World War II. And an Iranian knockoff version of K.F.C., the chicken chain widely associated with the United States, was summarily closed after two days.
“It feels like a witch hunt,” said one Iranian-American businessman in Tehran, who dared not speak for attribution over fear for his safety. “It’s pretty scary.”
Yes, it is. And pretty predictable.
The Times writers begin their piece with “Anyone who hoped…”, but they don’t go on to say who these vain hopers were. Might they have included the editorial staff of the NY Times?
The day after the Iran deal—which the Times supported, with some reservations—this editorial appeared in the paper:
In theory, Iran’s decision to submit to strict limits on its nuclear activities provides a chance for cooperation on other issues. By lifting crippling international economic sanctions in return for the nuclear restraints, the deal could strengthen the hand of the moderates in Iran. But if the economic benefits don’t flow quickly enough, hopes for an end to economic hardship could be dashed, discrediting the moderates and boosting the hard-liners.
In the negotiations, Mr. Obama was right to keep the focus on restraining the nuclear program. Now that the deal is done, Mr. Obama plans to encourage Iran, which has an abysmal human rights record and is exerting influence through proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and elsewhere, to take a more constructive path, though there are no guarantees that Iran will be less disruptive in the future. On issues of human rights, terrorism and ballistic missiles, sanctions under United States law will remain in place indefinitely to keep pressure on Iran. The administration needs to be vigilant about exercising that leverage.
“In theory” covers a lot, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, it almost certainly does not cover hard reality.
So it seems that even the Times appeared to realize that Iran’s softening was hardly in the bag. However, the paper’s editors were among those who expressed some hope that Obama and the deal would make it happen. And then, of course, those sanctions concerning human rights, terrorism, and ballistic missiles were still in place, “indefinitely.” Right?
Not if Khamenei has anything to say about them (as of about two weeks ago):
Iran will consider any sanctions imposed upon it during the next eight years, including those relating to human rights and terrorism concerns, to be a violation of the nuclear agreement and will as a result stop complying with the deal, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared Wednesday.
In a letter to President Hasan Rouhani, Khamenei delivered his verdict on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached last July between Iran, the U.S. and five other powers, and laid down his conditions for acceptance.
“During the eight-year period imposition of any sanctions at any level and under any pretexts (including the repeated and fabricated pretexts of terrorism and human rights) by any of the negotiating countries [the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany] will be considered a violation of the JCPOA,” he wrote.
This would therefore oblige the government to “stop JCPOA activities,” he added.
And a big f-you to you, says Khamenei to Obama.
An agreement is only as good as the good faith of the negotiating parties, plus the teeth behind it. This agreement clearly never had any good faith on the part of the Iranians, and few teeth on the part of the US (at least, while Obama is in office). That was apparent and obvious to anyone who looked.
Today’s Times article observes:
Many proponents of the nuclear accord, in both countries, have suggested that a gradual improvement in relations was inevitable. Some even foresaw a shift in the region, shaped by collaboration between the United States and Iran to bring peace, coupled with an eased enmity that could embolden President Hassan Rouhani to open up the country.
While Mr. Rouhani promised more freedoms when he was elected two years ago, he has taken only a few cosmetic steps.
Now, as the autumn leaves are falling in Tehran, there are no signs that bolder changes are coming. On the contrary, a backlash appears to be underway, promoted by Mr. Rouhani’s hard-line adversaries in the government who are deeply skeptical of the United States and its allies.
The backlash comes as Iran is preparing for parliamentary elections in February that constitute a litmus test of Mr. Rouhani’s policies. It seems that hard-liners, using the intelligence unit of the Revolutionary Guards Corps, have started rounding up journalists, activists and cultural figures, as a warning that the post nuclear-deal period cannot lead to further relaxation or political demands.
Again, note that the Times doesn’t see fit to tell us who those “proponents of the nuclear accord” who thought softening was “inevitable” might be. The Times itself, although definitely a strong proponent of the accord in general, was always hedging its bets in terms of what would happen: maybe yes, maybe no, and certainly not “inevitable.” As the Times notes, there was no dearth of people who did think moderation would flow from this deal, however, and many of them used that as a prime motivation for the signing of the deal in the first place.
It never made any sense. Giving into a regime such as Iran’s—and this deal has been widely regarded as having done exactly that—emboldens it rather than forcing it into concessions. Giving it more money does the same. It is folly to think otherwise. Perhaps in the long run—the very very long run—something will happen to change the human rights situation for the better in Iran. But it’s not likely to be as a result of this deal, and certainly not soon. Au contraire.
Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Someone remind me, please.
For not being George W. Bush.
And as far as anyone can tell, he’s still not George W. Bush, so Mission Accomplished!
“Anyone who hoped that Iran’s nuclear agreement with the United States and other powers portended a new era of openness ….”
Hope and Change.
Quelle surprise.
We will likely never know what was in the Iran deal personally for Barack Hussein. But a mere 1% commission on the $100 billion plus deal is $1billion. You think BHO can’t be bought? Or Kerry? Or Hillary? Or their henchpersons, their Valeries and Humas, their minions?
C’mon.
Iran’s nuclear agreement with the United States and other powers guarantees future nuclear conflict. It makes it a certainty that such will occur. It is now not a matter of if but of when.
Murderous fanatics push until they are rendered incapable of further aggression.
“In theory” covers a lot yes, as well as it also covers very little by leaving out the “in theory” on the other side of the equation: what if the Iranian tyranny behaves exactly as one would expect a tyranny to behave, what then?
I’ve recently listened to Ruth Wisse saying something along the line that the only one bad thing [moral wrong] done by the Jews against the Arabs was foisting Yasser Arafat upon them as their leader and arming him consequent to the Oslo Accords.
Then the question becomes, who pays the price of this injustice? We see the Arabs pay a price, but we see the Israelis paying too. Not necessarily, not formally, those particular Israelis whose decision this was, however, not directly, not pointedly, at least.
What of the price to be paid by those who tell us Iran will never have a nuclear weapon when some fine [awful] day not too long from now the Iranians announce that they have deliverable nuclear weapons? Yes, I’m looking at you, Barack Hussein Obama, you along with the nitwits who follow you. What price will you pay for this tale you tell? And who else will pay who never believed your tale? What becomes when that “in theory” and its missing corollaries are made manifest in deeds?
As noted, this was all predictable, even an old farm boy from Iowa read those tea leaves. The only positive thing that can happen is hearing the proponents of this farce of a deal chatter and stammer when the supreme leader (not bho, the other one) announces, “Inspections, we don’t need no stinking inspections.”
I’m sure the house of saud will soon collect a few of those nuke tipped ICBMs the Pakis owe them. But that may be the silver lining. The mutual destruction of Tehran and Riyadh is a win-win for the West.
So…”Death to America!” might not just be for a domestic audience?
Shocka!
Management specialists always say that past performance is the best predictor of future performance. It’s been true for Obama and is true for the Ayatollahs. Quelle surprise.
It’s been said before, but I don’t believe for a moment that Barrack thought that this “deal” would move Iran closer to what we would call civilization. The purpose was t move Iran’s nuclear program forward, strengthen its military and to weaken the U.S. ” A gradual improvement in relations was inevitable…” Inevitable. Does the writer mean sometime in the near or forseeable future? What would cause any sensible person to believe such a thing given 30 plus years of support of terrorism and a crushing control over all domestic affairs? This through the pretext of peace and cooperation is a really cruel trick to play on so many gullible souls in tv land who believe what they are told. Two hours after Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, the gayest white house in history was lit up, while in Iran homosexuals are tossed from buildings and hanged. Marie Harff (I believe) speaking for the administration told the American people that the slogan “Death to America” by Iran’s leaders was really only for domestic consumption. So, I suppose this is just Iran’s government mollifying their public, not who they themselves are. One would like to think that scatter-brained talk like that would be hooted and howled at by the tv and newspaper boys, but as the NYT excerpts show, I don’t think that has happened.
ANYONE who has read Eric Hoffer’s opus: The True Believer understands the Ayatollah’s logic.
The ONLY way to keep his mass movement rolling as a perpetual revolutionary cause is to maintain an us vs them alien boogie-man.
Further, good times would absolutely ruin the fidelity of the faithful — souls who must reject the present — in pursuit of some glorious tomorrow. It’s a tomorrow that the Ayatollah must forever keep at bay.
In the meantime, he’s stolen — in the most brazen manner possible — well over $150,000,000,000 in a nation that didn’t have all that much wealth to begin with.
His pals are also richer than Aladdin. Collectively, they OWN Iran, very much in the manner of the Tsar and his Boyars.
His control structure apes that of the Nazis and the ‘SS economic state.’
Rarely recounted, the SS had direct and indirect economic assets far, far, beyond their ‘arrangement’ with Oskar Schindler.
So too, does the Islamic Republican Guards. You’d swear that they’ve ditto’d the General SS.
Because of countless Hollywood productions — the average Joe only knows of the Waffen SS — the militarized SS. It originated years after the foundation of the SS, as the tyrant’s personal bodyguard.
They were in the original SS, the General SS.
This massive organization was directed internally, never at the battle front. (The camp killers were transferred from the General SS to the Waffen SS during the war. This was strictly a paperwork move with uniforms swapped. When the front arrived — most immediately ran away. )
The IRGC has aped Himmler’s minions in every way.
So what we’re dealing with are Nazis that are wary of making Adolf’s blunders. Like Saddam — they want to bob and weave their way to atomics and ICBMs.
Our brainiac President gave them carte blanche and a hefty door prize, to boot.
So we’re dealing with robed Nazis that are fatalistic// fanatics — and they believe that a wondrous Heaven awaits them when they commit mass suicide-jihad.
What could go wrong ?
Frog:
“We will likely never know what was in the Iran deal personally for Barack Hussein.”
Hm. An Iranian version of the Oil for Food scandal?
Indeed, Saddam’s advocates who opposed the US-led enforcement of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for disarmament mandated by UNSCR 687 (1991), such as Russia, China, and France, were complicit in the Oil for Food scandal.
Iraq successfully bought allies to defy the Gulf War ceasefire mandates. It makes sense that Iran would try a similar tactic with the same players.
Democrats adopted anti-American propaganda in order to oppose President Bush despite that the Clinton administration had fended off the same propaganda against their enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates.
Since they subsequently adopted anti-American propaganda on the Iraq intervention, is it outlandish to suspect the Democrats also bought into a subsequent Iranian version of the Oil for Food scandal?
GRA:
“Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize?”
Eric J.:
“For not being George W. Bush.”
Ironically, President Obama advanced the justifications for the Iraq intervention in his 2009 Nobel speech.
However, because the actual law and policy, fact basis for the Iraq intervention has been widely misrepresented, pundits claimed Obama rebuked Bush when Obama’s Nobel speech actually endorsed the grounds for OIF.
More along GRA and Eric J.’s point about Obama presenting as anti-Bush, as I’ve said here often, the false narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom made prevalent in the zeitgeist is patient zero for current events.
That manifests particularly with Obama’s Iran deal, which is characterized by a conspicuous contrast with the Gulf War ceasefire mandates and their enforcement, which set the gold standard for disarmament.
Obama’s Iran deal seemingly incorporates many, if not all the changes that Saddam’s advocates called for to replace the strict “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) that the US enforced from 1991 onward. Along with Neo’s post about Iran rejecting sanctions in other areas, the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” included terrorism mandates (UNSCR 687) and humanitarian mandates (UNSCR 688) as well as disarmament mandates (UNSCR 687).
In other words, on the premise level, if Presidents HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush were wrong to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235, 1998), then President Obama’s Iran deal is right.
But if HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush were right on Iraq, then Obama is wrong on Iran.
As such, discrediting Obama and his international course requires first laying the foundation by correcting the false narrative of OIF at the premise level and setting the record straight on the Iraq intervention in the American cultural and political zeitgeist.
Ali Khamenei was KBG trained in Moscow as was Abbas. We should be surprised that Putin, a former KGB officer, is supplying Iran and has formed an alliance in their joint Syrian adventure? If you dig through the back and forth at this left wing “fact checker” you will find that Khamenei is hard core revolutionary communist trained at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow under Yuri Andropov and that he is also connected to Chinese communist leaders.
http://www.drudge.com/news/192236/ben-carson-tells-bizarre-lie
The only thing we should not be surprised by is Obama’s acquiescence, given HIS background.
@The Other Chuck
There was no problem with Putin until Obama pushed EU towards Ukraine.
Right now, Russia should be a natural ally of western countries, since there’s complementary interests: Russia benefits from a market for its natural resources, western countries need resources to keep industry working.
Maybe it’s not by chance that Obama administration has chosen as main enemies Israel and Russia, both with leaders that share a similar profile: white males, conservatives, military background, tough guys.
It seems that current US international politics is driven by the lack of manliness of its president. It seems that US power is focused in settle the complex of virile inferiority of the US president.
And right now Russia is supporting Iran and anyone that opposes US. Logically. And US is losing control of middle east. What do you expect? If you gonna fuck someone, the least you need is to have a true man (or a true woman) as a leader.
While Roger Cohen prized the deal with Iran by saying :
However last Friday prayer Iranian Mullahs still lead the slogans at Friday-prayer refrain of “Death to America”?
Cohen talking the deal with Iran as an example to Israelis :
According to Mr. DAVID COHEN, he is the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury Department. Still there are tools in place could be used “ Not Easing Sanctions on Iran, Tehran will be deeper in the hole six months from now.”
Yann Says:
Right now, Russia should be a natural ally of western countries, since there’s complementary interests: Russia benefits from a market for its natural resources, western countries need resources to keep industry working.
There were some talks about this matter far from what you pined.
Qatar involvement and supporting Syrian war from start is to lay gas pipelines for western markets for its natural gas to western countries across Syria and Turkey,
Don’t underestimate the new discovery of natural gas reserves at Syrian shore it’s a big promises of natural gas
Eric Says:
Indeed, Saddam’s advocates who opposed the US-led enforcement of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance”
Let read together Why America Invented Ahmad Chalabi
Yann says:
And right now Russia is supporting Iran…
Russia has been selling weapons to Iran for some time, long before Ukraine. I would say Iran is almost a client state of Russia.
To be fair, Obama had some basis for believing that he could get along with the Iranians, Russians, etc. Back pre-2008, it seemed that he and they shared common enemies: Republicans. I’m sure he is disappointed that they did not realize their affinity.
@japan
With regard to Netanyahu’s “new low”:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Netanyahu-was-right-about-Hitler-and-the-Mufti-432055