“Evident victory!”
This is how Iranian President Hassan Rouhani describes
the diplomatic swindle, known as the “Iran nuclear deal.”
The Koranic term (in Arabic Fatah al-Mobin) refers to one
of Prophet Mohammed’s successful guerrilla raids on a Meccan caravan in the
early days of Islam.
Rouhani claims the “deal” represents “the greatest
diplomatic victory in Islamic history.” Leaving aside the hyperbole, a fixture of
the mullahs’ rhetorical arsenal, Rouhani has reason to crow.
If not quite moribund as some analysts claim, the Islamic
Republic had been in a rough patch for years.
For more than a year, the government was unable to pay
some of the 5.2 million public sector employees, notably teachers,
petrochemical workers and students on bursaries, triggering numerous strikes.
Deprived of urgently needed investment, the Iranian oil
industry was pushed to the edge with its biggest oil fields, notably Bibi
Hakimeh and Maroun, producing less than half their capacity.
Between 2012 and 2015, Iran lost 25% of its share in the
global oil market.
Sanctions and lack of investment also meant that large
chunks of Iranian industry, dependent on imported parts, went under. In 2015 Iran
lost an average of 1,000 jobs a day.
Last month, the nation’s currency, the rial, fell to an
all-time record low while negative economic growth was forecast for the third
consecutive year.
Having increased the military budget by 21%, Rouhani was
forced to delay presentation of his new budget for the Iranian New Year
starting March 21.
Against that background that Obama rode to the rescue by
pushing through a “deal” designed to ease pressure on Iran in exchange for
nothing but verbal promises from Tehran. Here is some of what Obama did:
·
Dropped demands
that Iran reshape its nuclear program to make sure it can never acquire a
military dimension. As head of Iranian Atomic Energy Agency Ali Akbar Salehi
has said: “Our nuclear project remains intact. The ‘deal’ does not prevent us
from doing what we were doing.”
·
He suspended a
raft of sanctions and pressured the European Union and the United Nations to do
the same.
·
He injected a
badly needed $1.7 billion into Iranian economy by releasing assets frozen under
President Jimmy Carter and kept as possible compensation for Americans held
hostage at different times. The cash enabled Rouhani to start paying some
unpaid salaries in Iran while financing Hezbollah branches and helping the
Assad regime in Syria.
·
Obama released
another tranche of $30 billion, enabling Rouhani to present his new budget with
a reduced deficit at 14% while increasing the military-security budget yet again,
by 4.2%.
·
Banking sanctions
were set aside to let Iran import 19,000 tons of American rice to meet
shortages on the eve of Iranian New Year when consumption reaches its peak.
·
Obama’s lovefest
with the mullahs helped mollify the Khomeinist regime’s image as a sponsor of
international terror and a diplomatic pariah.
What is the rationale behind Obama’s dogged determination
to help the mullahs out of the ditch they have dug?
Some cite Obama’s alleged belief that the US has been an
“imperialist power,” bullying weaker nations and must make amends.
Others suggest a tactic to strengthen “moderates” within
the Iranian regime who, if assured that the US does into seek regime change
might lead the nation towards a change of behavior.
Whatever the reasons, what Obama has done could best
described as appeasement-plus.
In classical appeasement you promise an adversary not to oppose some of his moves, for example the annexation of Czechoslovakia, but you do not offer him actual financial or diplomatic support.
Obama has gone beyond that.
In addition to saving Iran from running out of money, on
the diplomatic front he has endorsed Tehran’s scenario for Syria, is
campaigning to help Iran choose the next Lebanese president, and has given the
mullahs an open field in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Secretary of State John Kerry talks of Iran as “the
regional power,” to the chagrin of Washington’s Middle East allies.
What if the “deal” actually weakens the “moderates” that
Obama wants to support, supposing they do exist?
Obama’s imaginary “moderates” are not in good shape. The
Council of Guardians that decides who could run for election next month has
disqualified 99% of the so-called “moderate” wannabes, ensuring the emergence
of a new Islamic parliament and Assembly of Experts dominated by radicals as
never before.
Meanwhile, the annual “End of America” festival, Feb. 1
to 10, is to be held with greater pomp.
With more resources at its disposal, Tehran is
intensifying its “exporting the revolution” campaign. Last week it announced the
creation of a new Hezbollah branch in Turkey and, for the first time, made the
existence of a branch in Iraq public. Tajikistan was also publicly added to the
markets where Khomeinist revolution should be exported.
There are no “moderates” in Tehran, and the Islamic
Republic cannot be reformed out of its nature. For the remainder of Obama’s
term least, expect a more aggressive Islamic Republic.
Did the mullahs deceive Obama? No, this was all his idea.
