The administration claims that the letter threatens to
undermine their ability to negotiate a deal with Iran. Clearly, it’s critical
to understand what the actual objectives of our negotiations are.
In February, Kerry addressed Congress, stating emphatically
that under the deal, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. "The president has made clear—I can't state this more firmly—the policy is: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon," he told members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.
This declaration is key to my analysis, and I’ll return to
it shortly.
What, then, was the purpose of the letter? I won’t bother to
rebut the ridiculous reasons offered by President Obama (in his interview with
VICE News) that the Republicans were in league with the Iranian hardliners... nor add legitimacy to claims whispered by race-baiting Democrats by
responding to them.
No, I think the reason is really just what it seems: the
senators simply don’t trust Obama to make a deal with Iran over nuclear
weapons. I share this distrust, and I know I’m not alone.
There is plenty of evidence that Obama seeks a rapprochement
with Iran, much like his present campaign to normalize relations with Cuba.
The Obama “Iranian connection” is well known. Its focal
point is Valerie Jarrett, his Iranian- born senior advisor. Since first
occupying the office and going on his “apology” tour of the Middle East, Obama
saw himself in a historic role—the man who would pave the way for a new era in
US-Islamic relations.
His subtle pivot away from Israel and toward her enemies provides
further circumstantial evidence. Ditto his “terrorist summit” that was
performed for Islamic leaders and seemed to have as its chief aim the
prevention of associating Islam with the pandemic jihadist atrocities presently
visited upon “infidels” and apostates around the world.
So what about the nuclear deal? Any discussion that does not begin by asking
the question, “Does Iran seek nuclear weapons?” is to my mind, facially invalid.
We used to hear this question often. It was always posed to
any Iranian spokesman or diplomat granting an interview. We just don’t seem to
hear it very much now, when you would think it is most critical. Why is that?
After all, these negotiations... this deal... is supposed to be about
preventing Iran from “going nuclear.” Isn’t it?
Perhaps the reason we don’t hear this question is because
the answer is painfully, and laughably, obvious. Of course Iran seeks nuclear weapons! Is there anyone outside of Iran who doubts
this?
They sit on the fourth largest crude oil reserves in the
world. At a time when nations are sensibly dismantling their nuclear industries
and moving to healthier and safer renewable energy sources, how can anyone
claim with a straight face that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power is to satisfy
its energy needs? Unless, that is, “peaceful purposes” is really just a
euphemism for “obtaining nuclear weapons as a deterrent against Israeli or US
aggression.”
The lesson to be learned from our handling of North Korea in
contrast to Iraq or Libya is not lost on Tehran. If you possess nuclear
weapons, and particularly a sophisticated missile delivery system, you do not
need to fear military intervention from the U.S. (By the way, Iran has an ICBM
program.)
What is also obvious is that should (at this point we might
be tempted to say “when”) Iran develop nuclear weapons it will set off a
nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia will be next in line,
presumably with our help. Then... Egypt? Turkey?
The thought of any
nuclear armed Islamic nations in the Middle East should be cause for maximum
alarm to any sane person. It should in fact be the highest priority of the
civilized world to prevent this from ever happening. Do I need to say the word:
ISIS?
Inferring no judgments on the Israeli Prime Minister and his
address to Congress, Netanyahu said, "The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons."
In light of the scale and degree of the Jihadi atrocities we
have now witnessed, can this be disputed?
And so we return to our negotiations with Iran over its
nuclear “program.” What is the Obama administration really seeking? Is it to
ensure that “Iran will not get a nuclear weapon”?
What is missing from Kerry’s statements above? A time coordinate.
When, Mr.
President; Mr. Secretary of State? Until
when?
What I fear, and what I believe is shared by many including
the 47 Republican signatories, is that the time parameter is intentionally left off. I think the
unstated time is “in the immediate future,” or “for the remainder of my
administration,” or perhaps at the extreme terminus of ten years, as that
number features into the controversial “sunset clause” of the deal.
Netanyahu again, speaking of the deal,
one quote that rings resoundingly true: “It doesn't block Iran's
path to the bomb; it paves Iran's
path to the bomb.”
I believe that Obama & Co. are reconciled to the
inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran, and that perhaps they envision an alliance
with Iran as the first step in a some future grand reconciliation between the
three religions spawned by the children of Abraham—after Iran finishes off
ISIS, that is.
But most importantly, Obama envisions a nuclear deal with
Iran as part of his legacy, and he is willing to do anything to get it.
# # #
