Exclusive to the Trib: President Obama's policies are a disaster in Iran
caglecartoons.com
By John Bolton
Published: Saturday, Jan. 11, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Barack Obama's inexplicable and
increasingly dangerous tilt toward Iran is getting harder to hide.
Whether his administration is consciously shifting policy or simply
making ad hoc, unrelated (even incoherent) decisions is unclear. But the
cumulative effect is indisputable — a declining America in the Middle
East inevitably means a stronger Iran, portending grave risks for
Washington and its appalled friends and allies.
The first (and still the most
significant and most damaging) shift toward Iran was last November's
Geneva agreement regarding Tehran's nuclear weapons program. This deal,
technically still not yet operational (and with specific provisions
still being hammered out), represented a substantial victory for Iran.
The Geneva agreement, involving the
Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany, effectively
legitimized Iran's uranium-enrichment activities and other aspects of
its nuclear program, enabling Tehran to continue progressing toward a
nuclear-weapons capability at a pace of its choosing. The deal did not
in any way address Iran's ongoing weaponization work or its
ballistic-missile program, the intended delivery system for its nuclear
warheads.
Iran also succeeded in weakening the
international sanctions regimes imposed to thwart its nuclear program,
an enormous economic and psychological win. Loosening the sanctions
provides Iran with immediate economic benefits and also reverses the
global political dynamic, making it harder to ratchet the sanctions back
up during the undoubtedly lengthy process of Iran reneging on the
superficial and easily reversible concessions made in the Geneva
negotiations.
Accordingly, Iran achieved three major objectives:
• again becoming a legitimate negotiating partner for the United States and the West
• unraveling the economic sanctions
• shielding its nuclear program
Before Tehran could even contemplate resting on its laurels, however, Obama's White House was making more concessions.
Then, events deteriorated in Iraq. After
the final withdrawal of U.S. military forces, Prime Minister al-Maliki
showed himself to be the Tehran regime's willing puppet. By favoring
Iraq's Shi'ites and allowing the mullahs full freedom to operate in and
throughout Iraq to achieve Iran's objectives, al-Maliki drove Iraq's
Kurds even further away from the Baghdad government.
In Sunni Arab provinces, al-Qaida and
other terrorists have made a startling comeback, reflecting the
unrelenting Sunni opposition to al-Maliki. And Iraqi security forces
have repeatedly allowed Tehran's agents to shell anti-ayatollah Iranian
refugees and have threatened to send these refugees back to Iran where
they face certain imprisonment or death.
Al-Qaida in Iraq has been so successful
that its forces recently seized control of Ramadi and Fallujah, scenes
of intense Sunni rebellion after Saddam Hussein's overthrow in 2003. It
is shameful that the American sacrifices that stabilized Iraq have now
been obliterated. But the collapse of political legitimacy in Iraq is
directly traceable to Obama's determination — clear from the 2008
campaign — to withdraw all U.S. troops. Now, the consequences are clear.
Nonetheless, al-Qaida's successes do not
mean that the White House is justified in giving arms and other support
to al-Maliki's government, which is effectively an Iranian satellite. A
far better policy was that reportedly suggested by Henry Kissinger
during the 1980s' Iran-Iraq war: “Perhaps both sides could lose.” There
is obviously danger for the United States in a resurgent al-Qaida (which
Obama had previously refused to acknowledge), but strengthening
al-Maliki, and therefore his masters in Iran, is equally dangerous.
Unfortunately, there is more. After
contending for years that it favored overthrowing Syria's Assad regime
(while failing to supply the opposition with significant military
assistance), Obama agreed in September to a deal on Syria's chemical
weapons that gave Assad's beleaguered regime renewed legitimacy. Syria's
opposition was demoralized and discouraged, al-Qaida affiliates
increased their sway, infighting among the opposition spread and
momentum shifted back toward Assad. As a consequence, many believe
Syria's dictator might yet prevail.
Secretary of State John Kerry has now
gone further. He has invited Iran, Assad's chief foreign supporter, to
participate in upcoming Syrian peace talks (also in Geneva) without
accepting that Assad must step down. Said Kerry last weekend: “Could
(Iran) contribute from the sidelines? Are there ways for them,
conceivably, to weigh in? Can their mission that is already in Geneva
... be there in order to help the process? It may be that there are ways
that could happen.”
Perhaps Kerry was just speculating publicly, a remarkably dangerous propensity in America's secretary of State.
These three specific examples of tilting
toward Iran — on Tehran's nuclear program, in Iraq and in Syria — form a
pattern that deeply troubles Israel and America's Arab allies. They are
already discounting Obama's ability and inclination to protect mutual
interests in the Middle East. If Washington does not quickly change
course, the loss of U.S. influence in that vital region will only
accelerate.
John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador
to the United Nations, is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise
Institute. His exclusive column to the Trib appears the second Sunday of
every month.
Read more: http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/5373872-74/iran-iraq-obama#ixzz2qJ0K3uMD
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment