Friday, September 22nd | 2 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 13, 2015 1:58 pm

Sanitizing Iran, Demonizing Israel

avatar by Ben Cohen / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Sanitizing Iran, Demonizing Israel" to a friend

Peter Beinart said in one Haaretz article, "Bibi is much more dangerous than a couple of nuclear bombs." Photo: Elder of Ziyon.

JNS.orgAs expected, the Obama administration is having a hard time selling the American public on the feeble understanding—it’s not a “deal,” since nothing was signed—that was recently reached with Iran over its nuclear program.

Let’s start with President Barack Obama himself. Interviewed by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times after the understanding was announced, Obama was confident and buoyant, declaring that there was no formula “more effective than the diplomatic initiative and framework that we put forward” when it comes to preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Then National Public Radio (NPR) turned up. In that interview, an awkward-sounding Obama admitted that a little over a decade after a final deal is signed, Iran’s advanced centrifuges would have shrunk the nuclear weapon breakout time “almost down to zero.” It was a stunning and possibly unintended confession that sent both the White House and the State Department scrambling to offer a clarification. State spokeswoman Marie Harf described Obama’s words as “muddled” and “confusing,” before attempting to persuade us that the president was explaining what would happen without a deal. But look at what Obama actually said: “We’re purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year… that—that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.” It’s painfully clear that the scenario he outlined is one with a deal in place.

Related coverage

September 20, 2017 4:35 pm
0

Does the President Have the Right to Expect Loyalty From his Attorney General?

This article was first published by Gatestone Institute. Recent news reports describe the president chastising his Attorney General Jeff Sessions for disloyalty. According...

So, either Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or he’s lying. Either way, his pledge that Iran won’t obtain a nuclear weapon is about as worthless as, well, an Iranian cleric’s signature on a deal. And when you factor in all the other disputes that have emerged since the understanding was made public—Iran ruling out the presence of security cameras in its nuclear facilities, Iran’s insistence that all sanctions will be lifted when the deal is agreed despite American assurances that these will be removed in a phased manner, the realization that Iran will continue to operate advanced centrifuges despite (again) American assurances to the contrary—it’s tempting to believe that the goal of a final deal by June 30 will collapse amidst mutual recriminations and conflicting interpretations of what was agreed to in the framework.

If a deal with Iran can’t be sold on the basis of its substance, how can it pass muster? There are two factors that Obama and his flock are banking on. The first relies on scaremongering; if we don’t make this deal, we may be condemning ourselves to further military engagements in the Middle East. The second relies on a leap of faith; Iran, Obama, told NPR, may well become a more open society in the aftermath of a deal, focused “on its economy, on training its people, on reentering the world community.” But even if the Iranian regime doesn’t modify its behavior, he added, it is still “much better if we have this deal in place than if we don’t.”

The only people who will be persuaded by this fatuous argument—support the deal whether or not you trust the Iranian regime—are those already predisposed to a diplomatic outcome regardless of the medium and long-term costs. Those with a more questioning nature will surely understand that a deal based on the conviction that the Iranian regime is more likely than not to cooperate is the first step on the road to hell.

This is why so much of the commentary lauding Obama’s efforts with Tehran has avoided the details of the agreement, focusing instead on sanitizing the nature of the Iranian regime while demonizing the Israelis. Take one of the more dreadful pieces of late by Obama’s cooing admirer, Peter Beinart. Writing in The Atlantic, Beinart tried to argue that Iran is not a “totalitarian” regime, just a brutal one—the difference being that not all brutal regimes are able to exercise complete control over the inner and outer lives of their subjects.

Is that a reasonable summation of the nature of Iran’s Islamist regime? Absolutely not. Glaring by its absence from Beinart’s article was the concept of velayat e faqih, or “guardianship of the jurisprudent,” a method of Islamic governance devised by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini that gives the mullahs custodianship of the entire society—a totalitarian idea if ever there was one.

The implication in Beinart’s article is that it’s easier to trust bad regimes that are not totalitarian, because they are comparatively more sensitive to the desires of their people as well as the imperatives of the international community. Of course, Iran’s history since 1979 demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that neither of these considerations weigh heavily on the mullahs, precisely because they run a totalitarian regime. That’s why they used extraordinary repression to crush democracy protests in 2009, another crucial detail missing from Beinart’s piece.

In tandem with this polishing of the Iranian regime’s image come the appeals to support the deal because the most “dangerous” leader in the Middle East—aka Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—is against it. That was the core message of an on-air rant by MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who, in addressing U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) decision to seek the Republican presidential nomination, targeted “neocons and the piggish money behind them” as the true enemy. All the “neocons” want, according to Matthews, is a foreign policy that creates “pro-Israel democracies” in the region.

It doesn’t require a huge leap of the imagination to figure out that “neocons” here is code for a different word that starts with the letter “J.” (Matthews shrieked at one point, “Let’s just lay out who these people are!”) His words may have been uglier and cruder than the White House would have liked, but the message is the same: you are either with us or against us, and if you’re not even willing to entertain the idea that Iran’s promises can be taken at face value, then you must be as crazy as Netanyahu is.

There’s a little less than three months between now and June 30. We can expect much more of the above as we head towards the deadline, which is precisely why pro-Israel voices must not feel cowed or intimidated. Obama the so-called “peacemaker” is creating a situation that will generate war and conflict for future generations inside and outside the Middle East. That is why, even though the president’s chorus will mock us for saying this, we should say it anyway: Ultimately, we oppose this deal because it condemns our children to growing up in a world where democracies are in retreat, at the same time as totalitarian regimes (like North Korea and, yes, Iran) possess weapons of mass destruction.

Ben Cohen, senior editor of The Tower, writes a weekly column for JNS.org. His writings on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics have been published in Commentary, the New York Post, Ha’aretz, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. He is the author of “Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism” (Edition Critic, 2014).

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Beinart should be visited by the Mossad.

  • judorebbe

    Team Pinocchio thinks the American public is stupid. They’re right.

  • Mel Weiser

    Peter Beinart is no fool; he’s a self-serving opportunist who knows that the the surest way to career success is through recognition as a rock-thrower, and the bigger the rock, the greater the recognition. For him, Israel and Netanyahu are perfect targets just waiting for his boulders. Does he really believe what he writes? That’s doubtful. To think he does would be to give him too much credit for intelligent, objective observation. He’s not that bright. He’s just dangerously clever and career-driven and doesn’t merit the attention he’s getting.

  • Yale

    The real motivation between Obama’s defense of this “deal” is the aura of George W. Bush’s strike at Iraq because he believed it had a nuclear weapons program. That perception may have resulted from faulty intelligence or a deliberate effort by Saddam’s nuclear team to deceive him. In the event, it deceived US intelligence.

    To avoid repeating Bush’s “error”, and thereby granting him retro-active approval, Obama is going in the other direction, denying all evidence that Iran is actually intent on buiulding a nuclear weapon so as to make unnecessary the strike that could bring it to a halt.

    Since, in the end, there will be no agreement unless Obama submits to Iran’s demands for an immediate end to sanctions and no effective means to monitor what Iran is doing, all the fury over the “deal” and Israeli opposition will be seen to amount to nothing but a red herring enabling Iran to complete work.

    The real question now is whether Iran will provide the world a demonstration this summer, or wait until Jan 21, 2017, when they can spring it on Obama’s successor, assuming he has one.

  • Monty Pogoda

    A well written article. Very much to the point.

  • ben kramer

    Not a hard time selling the American public. It’s a hard time selling AIPAC backed Congress.

  • ted weiss

    this guy is the distruction of Israel

  • Lauren Goldman

    Obama can afford a cavalier attitude; he and his family are not an hour away from nuclear annihilation. His true view of Israel was made clear as soon as Tzahal began defending against Hamas’s rocket barrages. Absolutely everything Israel did to defend itself was berated by Obama. His first utterance? Israel should ‘use restraint’ in its response to the rockets; after all, Hamas had only been launching them into Israel for eight years straight. In the middle of the conflict, all arms shipments to Israel were stopped, so the purchase and delivery process could be ‘reviewed.’ You do not cut off an ally’s weapons supply in the middle of a shooting war. When Obama said he ‘has Israel’s back’, my thought was, Israel should ask to see both of his hands.

    • Ephraim

      Obama has Israel’s back. The trouble is, he is pushing the knife in deeper and deeper….

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    Obama must go!

  • Mike P

    Peter Beinert is one sick and twisted individual.

  • Howard Kahan

    “EITHER OBAMA DOESENT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, OR HE IS LYING”, OR BOTH. FOR SOME OF US IN THE UNITED STATES this is nothing new.

  • Pinchas Baram

    did you really have to run an oversized picture of the ever smug Jewish shmuck peter beinart? you spoiled my day. don’t do that again please.

  • rachel robinson

    We have watched Obama performing as president and especially as Commander in Chief (sic), and what we have seen is nothing but surrender after surrender on his part. He is not a fighter, he is a coward, a scarecrow, he is afraid of his own shadow, and especially when it comes to Iran and the mullahs he is just like the wicked witch of the west being covered with water.

    • Ephraim

      It is not surrender after surrender, it is goal achieved after goal achieved. Surrender implies that he has been fighting Iran. He has NOT. He is 100% enmeshed with the terrorist republic of Iran, and the so-called deal is exactly what he wanted to happen. No surrender on his part, just rejoicing.

      • Leslie Benjamini

        You are correct.

Algemeiner.com