Obama's dangerous Iran game
THE gods of news are working overtime. They delivered the twin bombshells from the Supreme Court, President Obama’s moving eulogy for one of the victims of the savage South Carolina church massacre and then the dramatic hunt for the two escaped New York convicts.
After those events, most people had no attention span left for anything else, including, unfortunately, the most farreaching news of all. That would be the simultaneous expansion of Islamic terrorism by both of its main sources, the Islamic State and Iran.
On Friday alone, jihadists left their bloody tracks in countries on three continents, striking France, Tunisia and Kuwait. The attacks left scores dead and came after an Islamic State leader demanded that Ramadan mark a “calamity for the infidels . . . Shiites and apostate Muslims.” Spokesman Abu Muhammad alAdnani has said that “Muslims everywhere, we congratulate you over the arrival of the holy month. Be keen to conquer in this holy month and to become exposed to martyrdom.” So much for the religion of peace. But even those horrors would pale if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, a terrifying outcome that also advanced last week and could be sealed in writing any day.
With a Tuesday deadline for a negotiated deal, the stretch drive is following a familiar script. Iran raises its demands, and America, on behalf of major powers, responds with capitulations.
The most recent concession saw the United States dropping a demand that Iran come clean about how much of its past atomic research was related to military use. Secretary of State John Kerry signaled the retreat when he said he was “not fixated” on the past.
Although European leaders protested, Kerry and his colleagues consistently show they will do almost anything to get a deal. Iran knows that, too, which is why it keeps making new demands, including that all economic sanctions be lifted immediately and that inspectors can never set foot on military sites. The mullahs have the upper hand because the other side is desperate.
Meanwhile, the White House strategy to win support at home has been transparent, as in obvious. After claiming the only alternative to an Iran deal was war, it has consistently lowballed the odds of a final agreement. The aim is to make a deal desirable to the American public, then use that desire as a cover for making endless concessions. Obama sealed the approach by saying there was no military option, so a deal was the only option.
The almostcertain result is a bad deal that, instead of delivering his initial promise to prevent an Iranian nuke, will likely pave the way for an arsenal.
All this was a concern when the talks began, and since then they have moved in only one direction. Our regional allies, including Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are united in their horror over the prospect of an Iranian nuke, yet Obama has tuned them out. As always, he and he alone knows best.
Still, there is time for effective pushback. Congress will get an upordown vote, which will be a chance for public opinion to be informed about the unfolding disaster and, hopefully, galvanized in opposition.
To that end, a bipartisan group of top policy experts released a letter threatening not to support any deal that did not meet key conditions. They demanded tougher conditions on Iran, including consequences for violations, and a halt to Iran’s continued support of regional terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and others around the world.
The signers, who include former members of Obama’s own administration, such as Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross and Gen. David Petraeus as well as a former top State Department aide to Hillary Clinton, also argue that measures they propose would “strengthen US capability” against both Iran and Islamic State, which they call by its Arabic name, Daesh.
“Acting against both Iranian hegemony and Daesh’s caliphate will help reassure friends and allies of America’s continued commitment,” they write.
Their letter ends with a blunt warning: The hopes that a nuclearized Iran will remain peaceful “have little chance so long as Iran’s current policy seems to be succeeding in expanding its influence.”
In other words, the whole approach so far is a fiasco built on a fantasy. Otherwise, heckuva job, Mr. President.