Obama’s Deal With Iran

By Rachel Ehrenfeld
Tuesday, March 17th, 2015 @ 12:45AM

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Obama administration’s efforts to advancing deal with Iran resembles final rehearsals before the raising of the curtain on the ultimate theater of the absurd. If Obama gets his way, Americans will be forced to pay with their taxes to watch how the much talked about on-again, off-again secret negotiations will lead to enriched uranium, enough to arm as many ballistic missiles as Iran would like. This will happen while Iranian terrorist activities and influence will increase in the Middle East and beyond. It is doubtful that turning Iran into a nuclear power, thus turning the world into a much more dangerous place, was not the “change” most Obama voters had hopped for.

Obama’s aspirations to go to Tehran has been made clear when he made his first inaugural speech in January 2009, announcing his “willingness to open contacts with Iran.” But the manner in which he handled the negotiations for the much hyped “deal” with Iran, gives the impression that the script has been written in advance, and not in America. Otherwise, it is difficult to comprehend how from 130 centrifuges in 2013, when the talks begun in Kazakhstan, Iran now has at least 20,000 centrifuges, none of which, according to its leaders, it plans to destroy. 

Hailing President Obama’s continuing efforts to appease Iran, his supporters argue he is merely following in the footsteps of earlier American presidents that for “the greater good,” had cut deals with enemies. We are reminded of Franklin Roosevelt’s deal with Joseph Stalin, Richard Nixon’s deal with Mao Tse Tong and Ronald Reagan’s and Jimmy Carter’s support of Afghanistan. However, none of these agreements is a compatible comparison. Incredibly, the Financial Times went as far as claiming: “Iran poses no threat to America’s universal values”(!)  But come to think of it, President Obama choses which  “American universal values to uphold and which not. Just recently, in advance to visiting Saudi Arabia’s new King Salman, he publicly refused to protest the Kingdom’s human rights violations and suppression of free speech.  Moreover, he noted it was more important to getting done with the business “that needs to get done.”

A few signs that this “deal” was in the making for a long time can be gleaned from the omission of Iran and the Hezbollah from the Director of National Intelligence statement on the Worldwide Threat Assessment report before the Armed Services Committee on February, 26, 2015.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has noted this omission and analyzed The Iranian terrorist threat:

On February 26, 2015, US Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James R. Clapper presented the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee with the Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community.

The Threat Assessment for 2015 was presented at a time when the United States heads an international coalition leading an attack against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, in the Threat Assessment for 2015, emphasis is clearly placed on the American campaign against Sunni-jihadi terrorism (whose most prominent representatives are ISIS and Al-Qaeda). Conversely, the head of the DNI does not mention the threat of Shiite terrorism, including the challenges of terrorism from Iran and Hezbollah. In this context, Hezbollah is not mentioned (apart from a single reference, stating that it supports the Lebanese Army against the “leakage” of Sunni terrorism from Syria). Iran itself is mentioned in other contexts as a country that constitutes a substantial and diverse challenge (cyber, espionage, arms control) while engaging in its nuclear program.

The lack of references to the threat of Iranian and Shiite terrorism contradicts previous publications by US government agencies (the Intelligence Community and the State Department) in 2014, which stated that Iran and Hezbollah continued to directly challenge the interests of US allies and that Hezbollah had increased its global terrorist activity in recent years to a level not seen since the 1990s (see Appendix A).

In the ITIC’s assessment, the lack of reference to the Shiite terrorist threat, and Iran and Hezbollah as its generators, is not accidental.The ITIC believes that this is due to a combination of political considerations (the US dialogue with Iran over the nuclear agreement) and the idea that Iran and Hezbollah may be of assistance in the campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq and possibly in other countries (Iran is mentioned together with the United States, the West and the Arab countries as confronting ISIS). Under these circumstances, the US prefers to downplay Iran’s use of the “terrorist weapon” (including the massive support that it provides to Hezbollah and its use of the latter to advance its own strategic goals in the face of Israel and the entire region).

It should be noted that in contrast to the review by the head of the DNI, the Qods Force and Hezbollah do appear on the DIA’s list of terrorist threats, although it seems they are mentioned in the report in rather weak terms. In the list of global threats[1] presented to Congress by DIA Director Vincent R. Stewart (February 3, 2015), Iran and Hezbollah are mentioned on the list of terrorist threats. The chapter “Terrorism” is devoted primarily to Al-Qaeda and ISIS, while Iran and Hezbollah are mentioned laconically:

“Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and Lebanese Hizballah are instruments of Iran’s foreign policy and its ability to project power in Iraq, Syria, and beyond. Hizballah continues to support the regime of Syrian President Asad, pro-regime militants and Iraqi Shia militants in Syria…”

In practice, Iran remains a country that sponsors terrorism and perceives terrorism and subversion as a main tool for promoting its policy and its interests in the Middle East. The Iranian regime, by means of the Qods Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guards, allocates significant resources in the form of money, high-caliber manpower and weapons to support terrorist organizations in the Middle East, the most prominent of which is Hezbollah. Past experience has proved that acts of terrorism and subversion promoted by Iran are not limited only to the Middle East, but are carried out in many countries around the world. In the ITIC’s assessment, as Iran’s self-confidence grows, especially if it feels that it has made achievements with the United States in the negotiations over its nuclear program, it is liable to increase the scope of its support to terrorism and its daring use of terrorism and subversion in the Middle East and around the world.

 

FOLLOW US
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinyoutubeFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinyoutube


Categories: Al Qaeda, Arms, CIA, Egypt, El Sisi, Hezbollah, Houthis, IDF, Iran, Iran deal, Iraq, ISIS/IS, Islam, Islamist, Jihad, Latest News, Middle East Conflicts, Nuclear Iran, Nuclear missles, Nuclear threat, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Obama Administration, Saudi, Sinai, Terrorist Financing, U.S. Policy, Yemen