It
is not possible for people of faith to remain silent politically, and yet
remain religious, spiritual or godly.
The kind of religiosity that builds a concrete wall between church and
state, or synagogue and state as the case may be, is the kind of religiosity
that is blind to injustice and divorced from ethics. That’s not religiosity as any of us would
define it. And so there comes a time
when we must comment on a political development because to not do so would be
an act of spiritual and moral negligence.
And it is in that spirit that I share a few of my own thoughts on the
“Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” more commonly known as the proposed P5+1
deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, or just the Iran Deal, that has largely
been brokered by the United States.
We
can all appreciated the advent of diplomacy over war. It is better to talk than destroy. And in this case, talking or diplomacy has
achieved some advantages for the Mideast.
It has succeeded in moving the leading State Sponsor of Terrorism, Iran,
to commit to a reduction of its uranium supply to no more than half of what it
would take to make a bomb; to dismantle 2/3 of its 2,700 uranium-enriching
centrifuges from Fordow and to stop refining there; and to agree to permanent,
international monitoring of its atomic energy industry by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In
exchange, the economic sanctions that have been imposed upon Iran would be
lifted as soon as 2016, as well as certain military sanctions that would follow
later. That’s the deal. In spite of its
advantages, I don’t like it. Let me tell
you why.
I
don’t want to give any nation that is a non-nuclear power and views America as
the enemy, permission to go nuclear even under a controlled environment. When the mullahs of Iran refer to America as
the Great Satan, I get the sense that they are not using the term
metaphorically. The cultural system that
we promote, that has evolved in a milieu of civil liberties and freedom, is one
that espouses equality for women, legitimates homosexual unions, separates
religion from political rule, and embraces ethnic and religious diversity as an
enriching phenomenon in life. These are cultural norms that even some Americans
have difficulty with, let alone the fundamentalist and medieval clerics of
Iran’s religious and political leadership.
It is not difficult to understand why they think of us as satanic. The former American embassy in Tehran, the
place where American diplomats and employees were held hostage for 444 days, is
now known as the Museum of Spies. Its
walls are plastered with graffiti and a depiction of Lady Liberty shows her to be
a skeleton, Death personified, her torch a machine gun. We are Satan, and we are not little. We are the Great Satan. So, no, that’s the kind of country whose
nuclear program I would not want to contain; I would rather terminate it, for
good.
Had
the P5 + 1 agree to lift sanctions in exchange for a non-nuclear Iran, then
even with Iran’s bad boy behavior in the neighborhood, the deal would be justified. But the deal does not address Iran’s appetite
for supporting terrorism—Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, the insurgency in
Yemen, or Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, a regime that has now retained power
at the expense of 220,000 dead by United Nations estimates. Rather than punishing Iran for bankrolling
terrorism, the Iran deal rewards an insidious power that is looking for greater
power, not less.
The
reward itself would come in the form of dollars. Once sanctions are lifted, Iran could have
access to $100 billion dollars. In
truth, I have read or heard this estimated figure to be as high as $150
billion, and as low as $50 billion dollars.
Let’s go with the low estimate.
$50 billion is greater than the state budget of Virginia. Why would anyone want a terrorist state to
receive that kind of money? Why would we
open access to that magnitude of revenue when even under our “tough” sanctions,
Iran still had money to spare for supporting their nefarious deeds throughout
the Mideast? It makes no sense. This is a time to choke their revenue
pipeline, not open it.
Of
course, the counter argument is that the world cannot impose sanctions on Iran
forever. India and China have much of
Iran’s money in frozen bank accounts and will not hold it indefinitely. And that is a sad fact. Sadder still is the idea that American
interests have fallen victim to a global community that no longer sees us as
Leaders of the Free World, but just another nation that can’t act decisively unless
there is a committee of nations in agreement.
Who actually is the leader of the Free World? Does that leader exist? The principal broker of this deal, the United
States, has negotiated from a position of weakness, and Iran knows it.
What
has become of this great nation? Where
is the conviction of our principles? The
deal includes provisions for the United State cooperating with Iran on projects
of common economic and technological interests.
This is not the vision of America we were raised on. America does not cooperate with the enemy,
especially when allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia openly question the wisdom
of the deal. People who don’t know their
enemies are in trouble; but the people who don’t know their friends are in
deeper trouble. And the same is true of
nations.
The
Congress must approve this deal, we are told, because without the deal, Iran
will be in the fast lane to securing a bomb.
CNN on July 24, 2015, quotes the Secretary of State, John Kerry, as
follows: “This is not a question of what
happens in 15 years or 20 years… This is a question of what happens now,
tomorrow, if we don't accept this deal. Because Iran will go right back to its
enrichment." Mr, Kerry’s summation
reads like an international extortion scheme.
We must approve a deal that leaves Iran with limited nuclear
capabilities and billions of dollars in revenue or else it will build a bomb. That’s an extortion scheme—and one, oddly
enough, initiated by the victim, the western world.
When
has satisfying the demands of a thug ever ended well?
It
seems to me that threats of an existential nature—we will build a bomb or
else!—should not be honored. The deal
positions Iran to capitalize off its extortion ploy. Please don’t feed the beasts—it makes them
grow stronger.
Iran’s
history of consistently violating United Nations resolutions is
well-documented. There is every reason
to believe that this deal will be violated as well. In fact, commentators do not speak of “if”
Iran will violate the agreement but “when” Iran will violate the
agreement. Perhaps these violations will
be only minor, and only here and there, but here and there over ten or fifteen
years evolves into “all over the place,” and the deal does not specify any
consequences for multiple, minor infractions.
That’s not a minor, but a major omission in a deal of this nature.
But
there is no other alternative, Mr. Kerry claims. Actually there is. It’s just not a very popular one. It’s called bombing Iran conventionally
before a conflict escalates into—God forbid!—a nuclear clash. It is clear that Iran has used its
anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric to galvanize the Islamic masses within
its own nation and beyond, positioning itself to achieve regional hegemony. And sad to say—their hateful rhetoric
works. So if the rhetoric works, chances
are the regime will not abandon the tactic. It therefore makes no sense to let
them build their nuclear capabilities under some sort of supervision while they
continue to nurture their hatred of all things western (read: Israel and the United States).
In
response to the bombing option, Mr. Kerry says that you cannot bomb away the
knowledge of how to build the bomb, and Iran already has that knowledge. True, but the argument is spurious. Obviously, you cannot bomb away knowledge,
but bombs are meant to destroy the infrastructure that goes into making
weaponry. That’s what you destroy. It’s an inelegant message, but it’s a very
powerful message—we won’t stand for state-sponsored terrorism, for
international thuggery. If we truly
believe in ourselves, in our principles, in what we stand for, then we
shouldn’t stand for a country that represents the very opposite of those
ideals, particularly one that repeatedly threatens war.
This
is a watershed moment in the history of American diplomacy and one in which we
dare not remain silent or complacent.
This deal changes a dynamic between a 21st century world and
another still mired in the medieval period. Time may be universal but humanity does not
evolve uniformly, not when one world is applauding homosexuality and the other
stoning women to death for infidelity.
What
a shame it is for a little country like Israel to have to chastise a great
country like America for its myopia and recklessness. America should be older and wiser. We should be more confident and
stronger. Instead, we’ve come up with a
deal that is a testimony to America’s weakness, lack of resolve, and waning
influence within the international community.
Shame on us. Congress should vote
this deal down.
And
don’t worry about there being no other option.
Diplomats need to stay in business.
They will find a way.
No comments:
Post a Comment