The Alternative
by Gamaliel Isaac
The most
common counter-argument directed to those who criticize the deal the United
States made with Iran is that the alternative is worse. Senator Coons of
Delaware explained his support for the deal by saying “The alternative, to me,
is a scenario of uncertainty and isolation. “ Senator Cory Booker said
“it is better to support a deeply flawed deal, for the alternative is
worse.” National Security Adviser Susan Rice
said that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” President Obama said
“the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war.
“ Kerry insisted that “there’s no alternative being provided” by
opponents of the deal. “They all say, oh, why didn’t you crush them with the
sanctions? I will tell you why. Because they won’t be crushed by sanctions.
That’s been proven. And because we will lose the other people who are helping
to provide those sanctions. They are not going to do that if Iran is willing to
make a reasonable agreement....There is a lot of fantasy out there about this —
quote — ‘better deal.’ The fact is that we spent four years putting together an
agreement that had the consent of Russia, China, France, Germany, Great Britain
and Iran. That is not easy.”
Listening
to Kerry one gets the impression that the United States tried to come up with a
tough agreement but its European partners stood in the way.
That’s
not the way the Europeans see it. Bruno Tertrais
wrote in July 2015 in the Canadian newspaper Le
Devoir that "with pressure from the Obama administration"
European negotiators' original intent deteriorated from a rollback of Iran's
nuclear ambitions to their containment. Likewise Camille Grand, director of the
Foundation for Strategic Research -- a think tank with a reputation for telling
truths the French government might prefer to avoid--said: "the Americans gave the impression they wanted the
deal more than Iran did. The administration put more pressure on its friends in
the negotiations than on the Iranians."
According to Obama the deal cuts off all
pathways to the bomb. But in order for
this deal to cut off all pathways to the bomb, the West has be able to catch
Iran if it cheats on the deal and be able to apply enough pressure to make Iran
stop cheating. Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes
confirmed that:
under this deal,
you will have anywhere/anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear
facilities that Iran has.
After the Obama administration gave up on that demand lead
U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman told reporters
I think this is
one of those circumstance where we have all been rhetorical from time to time. That phrase, ‘anytime, anywhere,’ is
something that became popular rhetoric
she said.
Like Mr. Rhodes Hillary Clinton reassured America. In
a speech at the Brookings Institution she said “if Iran cheats
we’ll know it and we’ll have time to respond decisively.”
But how will we know if Iran is cheating?
American inspectors are not allowed under the terms of the deal, and Iran can
choose which inspectors it will allow. In addition Iran has said that its
military sites are off limits to inspectors. According to the Associated
Press a secret side deal lets Iran uses its own inspectors to investigate the Parchin site, where Iran is suspected of developing nuclear
arms. Reuters report on Sept 21 that
Iranian
experts have taken samples in Parchin facilities ‘without
IAEA's inspectors being present,' confirms the accuracy of the Associated Press
report.
Hillary’s statement that “we’ll have time to act
decisively” raises the question of what decisive action she is referring
to. Kerry said Iran “won’t be crushed by sanctions”. That leaves
military action. Originally Obama proclaimed that all options — including military attack — were “on the
table.” Later Obama told Israeli TV “a
military option is not on the table and will not eliminate an Iranian nuclear
threat. A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States
participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it
will not eliminate it.”
In an interview with the New
York Times Obama added: “We know that a military strike or a
series of military strikes can set back Iran’s nuclear program for a period of
time — but almost certainly will prompt Iran to rush towards a bomb, will
provide an excuse for hard-liners inside of Iran to say, ‘This is what happens
when you don’t have a nuclear weapon: America attacks.’”
In the unlikely event that a future American president
decides to attempt to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, he or she will be faced
with a much more formidable foe as a result of the agreement. Russia has sold batteries of
S300s, one of the world’s most advanced air defense systems to Iran and the Chinese are
already negotiating the sale to Iran of 24 Chengdu J-10 fourth-generation fighter jets.
Sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program will be a lot more
difficult as well, since as part of the deal the West will train Iran on how to
protect its nuclear sites against sabotage. This is according to a copy of the agreement furnished by both the Russians and
Iranians.
Even if Iran abides by the deal, its ability to
produce an arsenal of nuclear weapons will increase over time as the West
assists Iran in the development of faster centrifuges as part of the
deal. In addition the deal allows Iran to develop and purchase ballistic
missile technology. Nearly 200 retired military leaders, including Bud
Edney, the former supreme commander of NATO, signed a
letter in which they pointed out that the sale of ballistic missile
technology will facilitate Iranian development of ICBMS that can reach the
United States.
Senator Menendez, one of the few Democrats sane enough to
reject the agreement, pointed out another problem. He said: “Within about a year of Iran meeting its initial
obligations, Iran will receive sanctions relief to the tune of $100–150 billion
in the release of frozen assets…”
Once Iran has that money and the S300s, whatever
leverage the United States has will be gone and Iran could openly violate the
agreement, build an arsenal of nuclear weapons protected by S300 missiles, and
keep the money. The infusion of funds will be a bonanza not only for Iran
but for Iran’s terrorist proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. In fact in the
short time since the deal was signed Iran has already increased financial support for Hamas and
Hezbollah.
What if President Rouhani, as Obama
believes, is really a moderate? What if their leaders aren’t mad
Mullahs but rational people with grievances? Secretary of State
Kerry pointed out that:
From their
perspective, they look out and say, what the hell were you guys doing? You were
supporting Saddam Hussein against us. We fought six years of war, we lost a
million people, and you guys were giving him the weapons to do it. And when
they gassed our citizens, you didn’t go to the UN the way you did with [Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad]. … They argue very passionately, they say, look, a
certain country has been assassinating our scientists. You and others have been
invading us with technical means and trying to screw up our program.
What if, as Obama has suggested, Iran feels vulnerable and insecure and in pain and is worried America will repeat
actions that hurt it in the past? Perhaps if the West agreed to protect
the Iranian nuclear program Iran would feel less vulnerable and might even
become a friend. (Protecting Iran’s program is actually part of the agreement). What if lifting sanctions will reduce the ill
will that Iran feels toward the United States? What if Obama was right
when he explained that the nuclear deal with Iran was a good place to start to
achieve American goals of everyone “living in peace?” Maybe engagement
will strengthen the moderates in Iran and create good will between them and the
United States.
The fallacy of the grievances argument
is that radical Muslims always have grievances. When the West is
compelled to defend itself against radical Islamic aggression that becomes a
grievance. The fact that the Iranians still haven’t released the American
hostages raises doubt about the good will this agreement will bring. The
brutality of the Iranian regime to its own people raises doubt about
Iranian moderation. The calls of death to America by Iran's Supreme
Leader, Ali Khamenei while Kerry touted progress in the talks and the chants of
“Death to America” at the Al Quds demonstration attended by President
Hassan Rouhani after the agreement strongly suggest that Iran’s leaders are not
as moderate as Obama would have us believe.
Former president Jimmy Carter also believed the radical Muslims of Iran were
moderate. Mr. Carter perceived Khomeini as a religious holy man in a grassroots revolution. Andrew
Young, Carter’s ambassador to the United Nations said” Khomeini will eventually
be hailed as a saint.” Carter’s Iranian ambassador, William Sullivan, said,
“Khomeini is a Gandhi-like figure.” Carter adviser James Bill proclaimed on
Feb. 12, 1979 that Khomeini was not a mad mujahid,
but a man of “impeccable integrity and
honesty.” The policies of President Carter, resting on such
delusions, turned what was once an America ally into the nuclear menace it is on
the verge of becoming.
The
misconception of both Jimmy Carter and President Obama is that there are
moderates in the Iranian leadership. The moderates are among the people
of Iran. In 2009 those people protested and were gunned down. The Obama administration complained but did
nothing. That was a major mistake. Hillary Clinton implied that when she said:
I
think we were too restrained in our support of the protests in June 2009 and in
our condemnation of the government crackdown that followed. That won’t
happen again.
Given the fate of those who rose in
rebellion and the lack of support from the West, it is very unlikely that there
will be another such opportunity. So what is the alternative?
In the short term the alternative is to
destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, whatever the price, because any price is
better than a nuclear Iran. Obama is right that they will rebuild their
capability which is why it is necessary to do whatever it takes to liberate the
moderate Iranians from the current Iranian regime.