By David Amess | Contributor
Aug. 3, 2016, at 11:15 a.m.
July 14 marked the first anniversary of the Iran nuclear
agreement, which exchanged extensive sanctions relief for the limited restrictions
on Iran's nuclear program. The occasion brought with it a renewed outpouring of
criticism for what many politicians and foreign policy experts justifiably see
as a giveaway to a brutal regime with a notorious record of human rights abuses
and sponsoring terrorism.
Just days earlier, on July 9, Iran's democratic opposition
coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, held its annual rally
outside Paris, calling attention to the regime's ongoing domestic abuses and
calling for regime change. Naturally, the event saw a great deal of overlap
with the nuclear issue, as a number of prominent figures
took the stage to deliver speeches in support of the coalition and in
opposition to the conciliatory policies that led us to last summer's Iran dal,
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The rally brought these speakers together from a wide range
of countries and political leanings. Republicans from the United States, like
Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, joined Democrats including Howard Dean and Bill
Richardson. European participants included former French Secretary of State for
Human Rights Rama Yade and the former President of the European Commission,
Jose Manuel Durao Barroso. At the rally, some reiterated their skepticism about
the nuclear arrangement, while others focused on the absence of the promised
trend toward moderation in other aspects of the Iranian regime – a promise that
helped to sell the deal to countries worldwide and to the public.
In the aftermath of the rally, the Iranian regime showed the world
community more evidence of this lack of moderation. The Iranian Foreign
Ministry gave rather hysterical statements
denouncing some of the countries that sent delegations to the event, and in
doing so, Iranian authorities made it clear that they are unwilling or unable
to tolerate a peaceful demonstration even on foreign territory, much less
inside the Islamic Republic itself.
All of this political action and commentary raises a very
basic question about the current state of Iranian-Western relations: What is
the motivation behind this policy of appeasement on the nuclear deal and its
implementation?
Perhaps the simplest answer is that policymakers actually
believe the deal will stall Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon. Yet that
belief seems highly dubious, since much of the recent criticism has emphasized
a lack of transparency in International Atomic Energy Agency inspections and
ongoing uncertainty of Iran's baseline nuclear knowledge. Yet what is more
important is that even if the nuclear issue has been
resolved for as much as 10 years, as its
advocates tend to claim, that does not change the fact that Iran's behavior in
other areas has gotten worse to compensate.
This has been demonstrated by the escalating rate of
executions in the Islamic Republic, along with the recent spate of arrests of
artists, writers and dual-nationals, and by Tehran's persistent refusal to
compromise over support of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, or to limit the
Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian paramilitary role in conflict areas like
Yemen and Iraq.
These factors and many others, which were all highlighted in
the speech of the National Council of Resistance of Iran President-elect Maryam
Rajavi at the July 9 rally, rule out the rationale behind the
nuclear agreement. It cannot be true that the Obama administration and its
allies actually believe in the moderation narrative they put forward as
justification for the nuclear agreement.
The recent policy initiatives suggest Obama and other
Western leaders see no other alternatives. Along those lines, some advocates
for the nuclear agreement did indeed make the claim that the world faced a stark
choice between rapprochement and war.
If this was actually the case, adopting a self-defeating
compromise in order to avoid another armed conflict would be somewhat
understandable. However this last justification for appeasement is as misguided
as the moderation narrative of the nuclear deal itself, and if the global media
had paid more attention to the rally, people would better understand why.
There is an alternative to conciliation and war. It involves
supporting the Iranian resistance movement that gives voice to the democratic
aspiration of the Iranian people. Ending appeasement, even if it is a daunting
task, would be the best course of action. Yet policymakers do not seem to
recognize the Iranian resistance and see the popular support it enjoys among
the Iranian people; if they did, they would not need to reformulate their own
policy positions.
The economic sanctions that have brought the Iranian regime
to the nuclear negotiating table have edged it further to the brink of
collapse, stripping billions of dollars from its repressive forces and notably
the Revolutionary Guard. The regime could have collapsed and it might
still. But that would require the U.S. and the EU to admit that appeasement is
not the way forward with any brutal regime, least of all the theocratic regime
ruling Iran that has a peaceful, democratic and credible alternative waiting in
the wings.
No comments:
Post a Comment