The Iran Deal and Doublethink

                                                                                     
                                                                                                                published at Honest Reporting

The substance of what’s wrong with the Iran deal (see here and here) can also be found in the uses and abuses of language surrounding the deal.

It is hard to reconcile that the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran say, directly, that we should not expect them to change in any way, and yet, the US led team of negotiators seems to disregard the plain meaning of these leaders’ actions and words. It may not quite be George Orwell’s “doublethink” in 1984:

“To know and not to know…to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic…”

But it is certainly disturbing.

The Best Deal We Could Get

Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that he could bypass the need for a 2/3 majority vote from Congress by referring to a treaty as something other than a treaty, presidents have at times called treaties “executive agreements.” The treaty with Iran goes by the name, the deal. 

And though discussion might have centered on whether this was a good or bad treaty, calling it a “deal” has not only made it sound like a less than weighty agreement, it seems also to have obscured why we, that is, the West as represented by the US, EU and UK, were negotiating in the first place.

The point of “dealing” with Iran was to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons.

Lifting sanctions was to occur in order to stop Iran’s nuclear build up. Since the deal does not accomplish this, the Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis, 77% of Americans, and Iranians (those who have left Iran and are free to voice their opinions) are against it.

It is not as if the US, UK, Germany and France actually need a deal with Iran. (Perhaps China and Russia are happy with the deal for economic reasons.) But the West and the Middle East do need Iran, the world’s biggest enabler of terrorism, not to add nuclear weapons to its arsenal.

If this really were the best deal that could be arranged, the logical alternative would be no deal – at least not yet.

Centrifuge and Subterfuge

The focus on making a deal--as opposed to influencing Iran’s behavior--has led to some weird obfuscation. 

Even if there will be some slowing of Iran’s process for the next few years, the materials and machinery needed for making nuclear weapons are still in place. The promised “anytime-anywhere” inspections not only have disappeared, they’ve been replaced with an up to 24-day advance notice and, even more bizarre, with the requirement that the Iranians must receive specific explanation of the cause for the inspection. 

US Undersecretary of State, Wendy Sherman said that calling for anytime-anywhere inspections was merely “rhetorical.”

The Not Moderate Republic

Everything other than the sanctions and the nuclear program was “off the table.” The deal lifts the sanctions and pretty much keeps the nuclear program. Human rights of Iranians were not discussed, not the beatings or killings of victims of rape, nor the hanging of gays, nor the lack of freedoms overall. Off the table, also, was discussion of the illegally imprisoned four Americans being held there.

Nor was Iran asked, in exchange for lifting the economic sanctions against it, to stop threatening Israel, to stop supporting terrorism by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad’s forces in Syria, or Hamas in Gaza. In fact, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenai announced, the day after the “deal” was completed, that this “victory” would change nothing about “policy toward the arrogant US” or their agenda, an agenda that uses very clear language. 

Throughout the months of negotiations, Iranian leaders led chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel” and reiterated their goals of becoming the dominant force in the Middle East, as they believe is the destiny of the Islamist Republic of Iran.

Trying to account for agreement to this deal seems to require Orwell’s doublethink.

Iran Deal -- Red Flags

                                                                                                                   Investers.com cartoons

It is hard to believe that when faced with the obvious problems of the Iran “deal,” the most powerful country in the world just gives in.

Here is a top 10 of Iran agreement red flags:

10.“Death to America”

Apparently it is out of fashion to take literally the words of world leaders, the same leaders with whom you are negotiating about nuclear weapons, words they keep repeating, shouting and loudly encouraging others to believe, the words of rulers for whom “death to America” is a goal, an agenda. If someone states clearly and repeatedly that he hates you and wants to kill you, why would you help him to more firepower?

9.  Destroying Israel is “Non-negotiable”

The familiar talk of wiping Israel off the map has continued, even escalated, during discussion of Iran’s nuclear program.  And if we doubt the literal nature of these words, or imagine that they are simply bluster, we need only notice the way Iran’s actions are consistent with these threats:

8. Iran arms Hezbollah.

7. Iran arms West Bank terror groups and pays terrorists’ salaries.

6. Iran arms Hamas and builds terror tunnels.

5. At the same time, Iran backs militias in Yemen, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in Syria.

4. Iran has not been required to stop any of its terrorist activities.

3. Whatever else Iran’s leaders say, they say clearly that they intend to become the one dominant, ruling, and Islamist power in the Middle East.

2. The deal isn’t really a deal, anyway. If the intention had been to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it is a failure. There’s nothing in the agreement that does this. In fact, even if the intention had been to slow down the program, it is a failure, for it doesn’t do this, either, as there is no guarantee of inspections.

1. Iran is already the biggest sponsor of terror in the world, making it the most dangerous place in the world for nuclear weapons.

Looks like the negotiators ignored the red flags and raised a white one.

Letting the Iranian Ayatollahs Slide

“When the Supreme Leader of Iran is continuing, in the middle of these negotiations…to make statements like 'death to America,' how is that not problematic for you? …why are you just willing to let that, let it slide, basically, and you are holding the prime minister of Israel to comments that he made and has since changed?”

In her non-direct answer to Matt Lee’s question, State Department spokesperson, Jen Psaki seemed to enact the very problem the AP reporter had just identified:

“…our relationship with Israel is abiding; it’s strong; it’s a security relationship; it’s one that we’re committed to. Do we have disagreements on some issues, like how we should proceed with preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Yes. Have we – can we – do we believe that it isn’t possible to just forget what the prime minister says when it’s conflicting with past precedent and past policy for some time? Yes…”

Lee tried to get Psaki to talk about the contrast between reaction to the words of an ally talking, during a heated, democratic election, about his country’s situation vs non-reaction to words like “death to America” spoken by leaders of the country currently negotiating--with the US--for nuclear weapons. But Psaki continued in the same vein:

“…even if there is a deal, it doesn’t mean we let slide or forget, whether it’s the comments or more important the actions – state sponsor of terrorism, their human rights record…But we also feel that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is not only in our interests, it’s in the interests of the international community…”

The implication here seems to be that negotiating with Iran about their nuclear weapons program is disconnected from considering or responding to their leaders’ words and actions. This seems to leave us simply ignoring the plain meaning of their words.  

By contrast, although Netanyahu clarified, or changed, his last minute campaign statement, the Israeli leader’s words apparently are always relevant.  Except when they are not, as in: we don’t accept his clarification.

   

A day after the election, Netanyahu reiterated that he continues to hold the same views as those he has expressed since his speech at Bar Ilan University in 2009.  There, he voiced his support for a demilitarized Palestinian state next door to the Jewish state, whereas in the last moments of the campaign, in what seems to have been a ploy to get votes away from some of the smaller parties, he contradicted this position. 

Politicians’ electioneering aside, journalist Matt Lee raises an important question. 

How is it that even while they are directly calling for the destruction of the US, Iranian leaders are not to be criticized or taken at their word, yet any statement by the freely elected prime minster of Israel, a close American ally, is under continual, negative scrutiny?

At the same time, Netanyahu’s consistent and persistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear program may be in the process of being ignored.  The upcoming “deal” has been described by an Israeli official as an “incomprehensibly” bad agreement that leaves thousands of centrifuges in place and puts no restraints on Iranian backed terrorism.