Pretexts, and Outcomes

"The sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement."
"One must absolutely not allow infiltration of the security and defence realm of the state on the pretext of inspection."
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

A nuclear framework agreement was reached after eight days of negotiations between six world powers and Iran in the Swiss town of Lausanne. (Photo: CBS News)

'Pretext of inspection'? In fact, the inspection of all nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran are vital to monitoring the country's commitment to demonstrating that it is indeed, as it claims, not interested in pursuing nuclear weapons. As though it is reasonable that a country with more than ample natural resources in oil and gas reserves would need a nuclear source of energy for domestic needs and scientific-medical purposes.

But the U.S. State Department's interpretive fact sheet, setting out their understanding of what was agreed between the negotiators, in an effort to reassure doubters that they struck a bargain to keep the world safe from a nuclear-armed country that has made no secret of its threats against another country and whose actions in inciting terrorist proxies to do their malevolent will against those it considers enemies is legitimate and useful has been torn to shreds by the very country the world mistrusts.

More or less overlooked is the very real fact that past research and development by Iran has been covertly conducted, deliberately held from prying eyes of the IAEA whom Iran repeatedly assured it had no interest whatever in pursuing a nuclear weapons agenda, when in fact IAEA inspectors had ample reason to believe otherwise. The sanctions lifting on an immediate and unconditional basis demanded by Iran for its pretense at cooperation represents yet another obvious total 'misunderstanding'.

But the framework 'agreement' for a final deal on June 30 is being treated as the formula for an agreement that can be relied upon. Despite the Grand Ayatollah dismissing it with utter scorn, denying that there will ever be the much-vouched-for agreement on free inspections, and demanding regardless a complete lifting of the sanctions, to enable Iran to get on with its entitlement to nuclear development.

The sham of the nuclear agreement has given heart to those more interested in pecuniary state interests than protecting society from a mad government investing in intimidation, terror and arms. And so Russia sees a green light to provide Iran with an advanced air-defence missile system because, according to Moscow it cannot violate the spirit of sanctions, since the technology is strictly for defensive purposes.

That it will serve to shield the development of an offensive technology that itself has the last word on striking capabilities is beyond discussion. And if Russia can move right in to sales opportunities, then why not others, and so lined right up there are the French and Chinese oil companies anxious to consolidate potential deals with Iran.

Despite all of this, President Obama is inordinately pleased, the agreement hoisted before the world as a great accomplishment. As for his Congressional opponents he has labelled them as irrational and militant, no different than the Iranian mullahs themselves. Despite that bipartisan congressional consensus has been achieved that oversight is required over an administration incapable of inspiring confidence.

The big question is what could possibly have led this Nobel Laureate to the conviction that such an agreement and the sanctions relief could ever aid in transforming Iran into a reasonable and decent power in the region. Is his mission really part of an effort to pull the U.S. out of all involvement in Middle East politics? The recognition of Iranian hegemony causing this administration to make that proverbial deal with the devil?

Abandoning the American working relationship with its former allies, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? What gain is there in all of this for the United States. Just to achieve a 'legacy' that will in the final analysis paint him as weak and ineffectual? And in the process tarnishing the reputation and the legacy of the United States itself.