Clifford May: Paris derails an Iranian 'sucker's deal' – at least for now
Mehdi Ghasemi, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Well into last weekend it looked as though Iran was going to win the latest round of negotiations - by a knockout, not on points. Secretary of State Kerry had flown to Geneva to sign a deal that would have stuffed tens of billions of dollars into the pockets of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, easing the economic pressure - the pressure that had brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. The funds would have been turned over with no restrictions. Khamenei could have used them to further Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program – the program that negotiations were meant to stop.
In exchange, Iran's rulers would not have been required even to begin to dismantle their nuclear weapons programs. There would be no end to centrifuge manufacturing, no halt to the plutonium weapons track, no "intrusive" international inspections.
Then, at the eleventh hour, came an unexpected twist: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced that Paris could not go along with what he called – with admirably undiplomatic candor – a "sucker's deal."
That, evidently, made Khamenei furious. He tweeted that French officials were "hostile toward the Iranian nation." Soon after, came what might be interpreted as a threat: "A wise man, particularly a wise politician, should never have the motivation to turn a neutral entity into an enemy."
A few days earlier Khamenei had, in effect, acknowledged that the deal being finalized would be a victory for Iran and a defeat for those on the other side of the table. He tweeted a photo of the Iranian delegation sitting at that table with this comment: "No one should consider our negotiating team as compromisers. These are the children of revolution."
In other words, the Iranian side had not compromised – all the concessions were being offered by the U.S. and its European partners. And by refusing to give an inch, Khamenei's negotiators were demonstrating their revolutionary credentials.
Americans have deluded themselves about the Iranian revolution from the start. I was a reporter in Iran in 1979 when, following the fall of the Shah, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini began to construct what he called an Islamic Republic. Most diplomats and journalists were all too eager to jump to the comforting conclusion that Khomeini was a moderate. More than that: William Sulivan, the U.S. ambassador in Tehran, called Khomeini a "Gandhi-like figure." James Bill, an advisor to President Jimmy Carter, called the dour cleric a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." Andrew Young, Carter's ambassador to the U.N. predicted that "Khomeini will eventually be hailed as a saint."
Abundant evidence contradicting such rosy assessments was ignored. Among other things, Khomeini had always been implacably anti-American. "The USA is the foremost enemy of Islam," he said in 1979. "It is a terrorist state by nature that has set fire to everything everywhere."
Khomeini's heirs – those "children of revolution" – have not mellowed. In 1995, Hassan Rouhani, now Iran's president – invariably described in the major media as a moderate – said the "beautiful cry of 'Death to America' unites our nation." Earlier this year, he doubled down: "Saying death to America is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action."
We've seen this movie before: American diplomats spent years talking with the despotic regime that rules North Korea in an effort to prevent it from becoming nuclear-armed. Concessions were made, aid was extended, agreements were signed, and progress was announced.
And then, in 2006, the North Koreans tested a nuclear weapon – demonstrating that they had not really compromised at all and were still very much children of their own anti-Western revolution. A second nuclear test was conducted in 2009. The U.S. vowed that North Korea would "pay a price for its actions." But that was only bluster. On Feb. 12, 2013, North Korea conducted a third nuclear test. Pyongyang is today developing missiles capable of delivering its nuclear weapons to those regarded as enemies.
Khamenei and Rouhani no doubt look at this history and say to each other: If the North Koreans can sit down with the Americans, play their very weak cards and walk away with the pot, surely we can do no worse. Khamenei and Rouhani were almost proven right - and they might still be. A new round of talks is scheduled to begin on Nov. 20. Between now and then, those favoring appeasement of Iran will almost certainly be negotiating with the French – in a more muscular fashion, I fear, than they have with Iran's "children of revolution."
Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. E-mail him at email@example.com
- In our opinion: Mounting evidence suggests...
- About Utah: A big deal just got bigger
- In our opinion: U.S. Conference of Catholic...
- In our opinion: Trump unmatched as a...
- My view: Have we crippled our kids with a...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Politicos...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Whatever happened to the...
- Letter: Good Samaritan
- In our opinion: Trump unmatched as a... 69
- In our opinion: Mounting evidence... 39
- George F. Will: The low depths of... 27
- Letter: Good Samaritan 22
- In our opinion: U.S. Conference of... 20
- Letter: Inversion concerns 19
- My view: Keystone Pipeline not in... 17
- A. Scott Anderson: Inversions will... 16