King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia
It is unlikely that you haven’t heard by now of the “historic” deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. In fact, USA Today even states “First Take: Obama takes historic shot with Iran deal” (bolding mine). It is not only being called “most unlikely” yet “potentially most meaningful” foreign policy victory, but they even compare it to the capture of Osama bin Laden!
Republicans, Israel Critical, France Tripped Up by Secrecy
Not everyone agrees, however. That fact alone is probably not a shocker. In the contentious atmosphere in Washington, it is no surprise that many Republicans are crying foul. It is also not a huge surprise that, as NPR puts it in “What You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal“:
— Israel Is Not Happy: “What was concluded in Geneva last night is not a historic agreement, it’s a historic mistake,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters. “It’s not made the world a safer place. Like the agreement with North Korea in 2005, this agreement has made the world a much more dangerous place.”
The mostly balanced NPR article points out several weaknesses in the plan, however.
As The New York Times reports, the two sides have agreed to let ambiguity rule in this case.
“American officials signaled last week that they were open to a compromise in which the two sides would essentially agree to disagree on how the proliferation treaty should be interpreted, while Tehran continued to enrich,” the Times adds.
To be fair, the subject at hand is about interpretation over whether or not there is any such thing as a “right to enrich”, but the above jarringly stands out to anyone critically analyzing the agreement nonetheless.
The NPR article also reports that there is a strong possibility that this deal was reached after a yearlong process of secret negotiations. This is important to keep in mind because France in particular has balked recently at some initiatives. Of course, where France and Germany goes, so goes the EU, and it seems the US has managed to do quite a lot to upset both in recent years.
Republicans, Israel, France and …?
France and Israel aren’t the only nations that got surprised by secret deals, however. One ally that NPR seems to be leaving out is Saudi Arabia. It seems that CNN is the only real US-based news agency left these days, as they are the only ones to point this out in articles like “Iran nuclear deal: One agreement, wildly different reactions“:
Saudi Arabia also expressed anxiety over the new deal. It’s a majority Sunni country; Iran is majority Shiite. And like Israel, Saudi Arabia is troubled by Iran’s growing clout in the Middle East.
“We don’t know all the details yet, but the Saudi government has been very concerned about these negotiations with Iran and unhappy at the prospect of a deal with Iran,” a Saudi government official said. “There is a lot of worry right now about threats to the region.”
In particular, the Saudis are skeptical about Iran’s sincerity. They are also concerned that Iran’s influence could grow in the region to become yet more of a threat.
However, The Telegraph was much less reticent in reporting “Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own” with the subhead of “Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own”.
[Senior royal advisor] Mr [Nawaf] Obaid said that while Saudi Arabia knew that the US was talking directly to Iran through a channel in the Gulf state of Oman, Washington had not directly briefed its ally.
“We were lied to, things were hidden from us,” he said. “The problem is not with the deal struck in Geneva but how it was done.”
However, about the worst that some others, including Al Jazeera, are reporting is that Saudi Arabia is “cautiously optimistic”. At least Al Jazeera reports that there have been “tense” relations between the US and Saudi Arabia, in spite of headlining “Saudi Arabia welcomes Iran nuclear agreement“.
And We Have?
It seems we have risked a great deal with this agreement, so what wonderful things have we gotten in return?
There is nothing to stop Iran from doing what they are doing. There is nothing stopping the centrifuges. There is nothing to keep them from enriching uranium (slow them down, perhaps if or when they get to that point, but nothing until it is already too late to stop them). I have to admit that I am extremely puzzled at what is so “historic” about this deal.
And, there’s more (or, should I say “less”?).
Iran is still holding an American citizen supposedly for endangering national security (by establishing home churches?). Once again, where is this story on ABC, NBC or CBS? Once again, CNN, and Fox News, seem to be the only ones reporting “Iran deal doesn’t mention detained American pastor Saeed Abedini“.
Now some supporters of the American pastor, who’s been detained in Iran for more than a year, are accusing U.S. officials of betraying Abedini by signing off on an agreement that doesn’t get him out of prison.
“We were across the table from the Iranians, and we did not bring home Americans. To me that’s a tragedy and that’s outrageous,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents Abedini’s family in the United States.
With such abysmal treatment of a citizen of the US under the Iranian regime, why in the world should we even think of easing up on sanctions? In fact, it shows how little regard Iran actually has even for its own citizens, as Abedini was organizing an orphanage (government approved even).
It should be obvious that the regime is only interested in power. Do we really believe they won’t do anything and everything possible to enlarge their power?
Someday, these times will be an interesting study in the decline of power, but not of Iran. It will be the study of how American lost her status as world leader by turning her back on God and losing all perspective of what is right, pure and fair.
It also is yet another on the long list of people crying “Peace, peace!” when there is no peace. I’ll have more to say about that later. For now, just think of Neville Chamberlain.