Ukraine is slowly dismembered. European nations bluster and threaten sanctions, then negotiate a cease-fire only to see Russian aggression roll on. The White House considers but never delivers defensive weapons to Kiev. Is it any wonder that Israel — and Arab states — might fear they’re getting the same treatment in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program?
OPINION
Ukraine is starting to look like the canary in the coal mine for the West’s resolve to stand up to what appears to be the stronger will of the opponents of democracy and Western values. Germany and France fret about provoking Russian President Vladimir Putin. He pockets their cease-fire while the “separatists” backed by Russian troops and armor march on.
Calls to provide defensive weapons like anti-tank armaments to Ukraine bring the response that Kiev can’t whip Russia in a war. Of course not. But better-armed Ukrainian forces could make the cost of aggression so high that Putin might gradually alter his stealth invasion and think twice about repeating his dangerous ambitions elsewhere.
The Obama administration presents a similar false choice about Iran: Either America negotiates a deal over Tehran’s nuclear weapons program or it’s war.
An early sign of the West’s lack of commitment to Kiev came in reports that Washington would not share with Ukraine U.S. intelligence about Russian troop movements on their borders.
Now the Obama administration acknowledges it no longer shares all sensitive information about the Iran talks with Israel — our strongest ally in the Middle East and the one nation most imperiled by a nuclear-armed Iran.
Likewise, the objective of the talks has eroded. “Iran must not get a nuclear weapon,” President Barack Obama said in a March 2013 speech in Israel. “This is not a danger that can be contained, and as president, I’ve said all options are on the table for achieving our objectives.”
Now the goal of the talks, according to published reports, is to reach an agreement to limit Iran to a 12-month breakout time frame for producing an atomic weapon while allowing it 6,500 centrifuges to enrich uranium, supposedly for peaceful purposes. The deal would restrict Iran’s ability to enrich uranium for 10 years with the restrictions wound down over the next five years. And, of course, economic sanctions so harmful to Iran’s economy would be eased.
Secretary of State John Kerry disputed the accuracy of the published reports. But it appears the administration is pursuing a policy to try to manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. What’s more, Tehran is free to develop a ballistic missile and it’s negotiating with Russia for defensive missiles. And, as recent reports of continued Iranian stalling of international inspectors shows, Tehran is adept at cheating.
Given the direction of the negotiations and the White House’s arms-length stance on sharing information with Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to explain the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran to Congress next week and argue against a bad deal.
Arab nations also are worried that Iran would use a nuclear shield to advance its hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. An Iranian deal likely would provoke Arab nations to consider moving toward nuclear status.
The White House is angry that House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu and the Israeli leader accepted without getting Obama’s approval. Some Democrats say they will boycott the speech because of this dispute, passing up an opportunity to learn more about the hazards of a bad deal. The mullahs in Iran would love that.
The irony is that all this comes at a time when Russia and Iran are in a weakened position. Plunging oil prices threaten to wreck their economies while making sanctions more powerful. But Putin and Tehran’s mullahs have another commodity on their side — steel in their spines.
Email: shuntley.cst@gmail.com
