Meanwhile, there is no meaningful rollback of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Some aspects of it are frozen; others are allowed to proceed. As James Jay Carafano puts it, “In return for getting precious little, the negotiators. . .gave up the one thing the mullahs really feared – a continuing squeeze on Tehran’s dwindling bank account.”
The one-sidedness of the deal is confirmed by the opposition of Israel and Saudi Arabia. These are the two nations that have the strongest interest in Iran not obtaining nukes. And both, by virtue of living in the neighborhood, have a better understanding of Iran than the U.S. does. Both nations would be delighted with a deal that is likely to prevent Iran from going nuclear. But both recognize that this is not such a deal.
That said, I don’t believe the deal results from insufficient U.S. understanding of the region. It results instead from Obama’s priorities.
Obama isn’t motivated, as Israel and Saudi
Arabia are, by a strong desire to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear
weapons. That’s not the purpose of this deal. If it were, Obama would
have held out for far more than what the mullahs gave him.
Obama’s primary motivation is his desire to reset relations with Iran which he expressed
in his 2008 campaign. The quest for such resets is a familiar theme of
the Obama administration. We saw it with Russia, of course, and we saw
it attempted with Syria early on.
Obama also tried to cozy up to former President Morsi and the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. His relationship with the less West-averse regime
that succeeded Morsi’s has been far less amicable.
It seems that there is no authoritarian,
anti-American regime too odious for Obama and his Secretary of State to
wish to appease.
(Click link below to read more) READ MORE Sphere: Related Content
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment