Western leaders wanted something akin to an agreement. They got something akin to an agreement.Iran’s leaders seem to have spotted pretty soon that Western leaders would willingly concede everything — and possibly more — to get any “agreement”; so that is what Western leaders got.
Western leaders not only failed to reach an agreement; they capitulated. The reason for the talks was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When, according to Western reports, they saw that Iran would not agree to stop, they “flipped” and instead became complicit.
All signs indicate that the West is planning to give a lawless, expansionist, terrorist regime nuclear weapons capability — as a reward for violating international treaties again and again. What message are other rogue nations to take from that?
Not only have Western leaders given the Iranian regime the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons; they have let Iran initiate and sanctify a nuclear arms race to destabilize an already volatile region. They have also given Iran the opportunity to get billions of dollars to accelerate its nuclear weapons programs – and they are negotiating to lift all sanctions either early or late so that Iran can get still more.
They also allowed Iran to keep four American hostages: Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Robert Levinson, who has not been heard from for years and may be dead. The State Department has said that “their freedom should not be linked to negotiations,” so their release was not even discussed. Their immediate release was the first matter that should have been discussed.
What Western leaders have deliberately ignored is the nature of the Iranian regime: Totalitarian regimes never abide by the agreements they sign. Islamists often refer to Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In 628, Muhammad agreed to a 10-year truce with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Two years later, when Muslim forces had gathered strength, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca. Since then, in Islam, no treaty can be made for more than ten years, and even then, it is not a treaty, it is a truce — to be broken again if Islam’s side is strong.
Although many of the terms of the “framework” are, we are told, known only to the negotiators, what we do know so far about what Iran wanted and got includes:
- Retaining its enriched uranium stockpile, not having to ship it abroad.
- Keeping thousands (at least 6000) centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, and modernizing its Arak plutonium reactor.
- Continuing its operations at the Fordow plant, under a mountain, in bunkers designed to withstand aerial attacks.
- A massive lifting of sanctions. It wants still more, “immediately.”
- Continuing to develop its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program
Iran’s ICBM program was not even mentioned during discussions.
Also not included in discussions was Iran’s ongoing funding of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was just removed by the U.S. State Department from its list of terrorist threats; and Iran was removed from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.
The “armed wing” of Hezbollah is still on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations, but Hezbollah’s “political wing” is not. Iran can tell European leaders that the Iranian regime supports the political wing of Hezbollah, but not its military branch. There is no doubt that European leaders, pressured by companies eager to do business in Iran, will pretend they received a satisfying answer.
Iran’s Defense Minister, Hossein Dehghan, hailed the framework as a step towards “establishing stability and security in the region.” Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said: “This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from the emerging deal.”
On the evening of April 3, Western leaders were smiling. Mohammad Javad Zarif, was smiling too. He was the only one who had good reason to.
Full article: Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War (Gatestone Institute)