With
Kerry under pressure, mullahs expand demands
By: Peter Brookes
From watching the nuclear negotiations between Iran and
six world powers (United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia),
it seems that in Obama World a “deadline” with Iran is a “deadline,” except
when it isn’t.
A lot like a “red
line” with Syria over chemical weapons.
Washington’s threats
of walking away from the nuclear talks (or inflicting punishment for the use of
chemical weapons) just don’t seem to be credible — which is likely a reason
that a pact with Tehran hasn’t been concluded yet.
Over the July Fourth
weekend, there was word on the wires that a deal was imminent and that the July
7 deadline — which was set after they blew through the June 30 deadline — would
be achieved.
Didn’t happen.
The parties then
agreed to conclude negotiating by the end of this week, if not sooner. That
looks unlikely, too, based on Secretary of State John Kerry’s
comments
yesterday in
Vienna.
If a final deal
isn’t sent to the Congress before today, the House and Senate have 60 days
rather than 30 days to review and reject the agreement.
Clearly seeing the
Americans — make no mistake, this is really a U.S.-Iran negotiation — as under
pressure to close the deal due to existing congressional requirements, the
Iranians not surprisingly started making new demands earlier this week.
For instance, Tehran
asked that the United Nations lift punitive economic sanctions placed on Iran’s
ballistic missile program; pretty brassy since the
mullahs refused to allow
its missile program to be part of the talks.
Iran also demanded
that the United Nations’ conventional weapons embargo on Tehran be lifted —
once again as part of a final nuke deal.
Washington declined
Tehran’s “helpful suggestions,” but Moscow reportedly is sympathetic to the
idea of lifting the arms ban so Iran can battle the
Islamic State with,
most-likely, Russian arms — what else?
There was also some
drama this week as nerves frayed.
Bloomberg, citing an
Iranian news agency, reported that Kerry and Iranian Prime Minister Javad Zarif
exchanged heated words in private that could be heard beyond the room’s
confines.
Though I stand by my
concerns about squishy deadlines (and red lines) and their negative effect on
American credibility generally and Iranian
positions (at the talks), the delays
may have actually served us in a way.
They’ve given us
time to consider and discuss the broader ramifications of the deal — which
aren’t happy ones.
For instance, the
release of $100 billion — or more — in frozen assets to Iran under a deal means
it will be able to muscle up its military and multiply its Middle East mischief
which is arguably at unprecedented levels.
(See my July 2
op-ed, “Deal or no deal, Iran still a threat”).
American allies and
friends will see a final deal as risky — if not much worse — and as letting the
Iranian genie out of the bottle it’s been contained in for decades, threatening
their security and advancing the Persian push for regional hegemony.
Consequently,
especially if they’re going to take their time and get a
“quality” pact, it’s
critical that Team Obama take these broader strategic concerns into
consideration as it works toward — should I even say it? — the likely setting
of another “deadline.”
Peter Brookes is a
Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of
defense. Follow him on Twitter
@Brookes_Peter. Talk back at
letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com.