Peace in Our Time or Prelude to Armageddon?
© David Burton 2012
Peace in Our Time or Prelude to Armageddon?© David Burton 2012 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
P5+1 Reach Interim Agreement with Iran
The problems with negotiating in the mid-east are already becoming obvious. While President Obama said, "We will refrain from imposing new sanctions, and we will allow the Iranian government access to a portion of the revenue they have been denied through sanctions", he did not say that all sanctions would be lifted. But “Contrary to what Obama said, {Iranian President Rouhani} said ‘all sanctions will be lifted’ as part of the deal.”[4] “That's not the only difference in wording. Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the written deal does not say that Iran can enrich uranium. - - - Rouhani, however, said the outcome means world powers have ‘recognized Iran's nuclear rights,’ including the right to enrich uranium. - - - ‘This right has been explicitly stipulated by this agreement, stressing that Iran will go on with enrichment,’ he said. ‘Enrichment will proceed similar to in the past.” (Ref. 4 ] Such is the nature of negotiations in that part of the world. Nothing is black and while and deals are made to be broken whenever convenient. It has never been clear that the American administration is aware of these facts. Their approach to negotiations has been to take the word of those with whom we negotiate, to put trust in their promises, and to assume that the middle-eastern rulers operate under the same gentlemanly precepts that the U.S. does. Many of us call this attitude naïve and dangerous, particularly for a country like Israel that will suffer most from failure to understand the intricacies of middle-eastern negotiations. In that part of the world, it is taken as gospel that might makes right. Being civil and gentlemanly is taken as a sign of weakness that can be exploited. As the saying goes. “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.” This would be good advice concerning the interim agreement with Iran. The U.S. has been involved in negotiating a deal in a mid-east bazar. The consequences of a bad deal in this case are not the loss of a few thousand dollars that results from being taken in by a Persian rug salesman, but in this case a bad deal could mean the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, mainly Israelis. Does our government have the understanding and skill needed to negotiate a deal in such an environment? “Our media, talking heads, academics, and even our government strategic thinkers have been dealing with the Arab and Muslim world based on the politically-correct paradigm of even-handedness, attributing most international problems to poverty, misunderstandings, rectifying historical grievances, and, in the case of Israel, territorial disputes -- while ignoring or underplaying key elements, such as the importance in Middle Eastern cultures of the values and importance of honor, shame, clan loyalties, theocratic religion, retaining absolute power, and frustrated religious imperialism. “As Harold Rhode, recently of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, wrote for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, it is crucial to understand the mindset of our enemies – something the current US Administration and the leaders of the European Union appear loathe to do. [Emphasis mine] “Dealing specifically with Iran, but implying that the Arab dictators and despots of the Middle East move to the same beat, Rhode concludes that the paradigms that govern US foreign policy in the Middle East today are totally at odds with the paradigms that actually govern the actions of our enemies. “The Western concept of demanding that a leader subscribe to a moral and ethical code does not resonate with Iranians or the Arab world in general. As Rhode notes:‘One coming from a position of strength will only make a concession if he is absolutely sure that doing so will consolidate and therefore increase his power. If one believes that his adversary will gain even the slightest advantage through such a measure, he will never concede an inch.’ The attitude, quite simply, is: ‘rule-or-be-ruled.’ As such, compromise, as we understand the concept, ‘is seen as a sign of submission and weakness’ that brings shame and dishonor on those -- and on the families of those -- who concede. [Emphasis mine] - - - “Further, while Iranians, and the Arab world cope with adverse situations by being ‘warm, gracious, polite, and obsequious,’ whereas Americans place a high value on ‘candor, straightforwardness, and honesty,’ we in the West fail to realize, to our detriment, that we are easily deceived by our enemies' effusively friendly, kind, generous, and engaging behavior --- as were the Europeans by Hitler's magnanimous promises of peace to European leaders immediately preceding World War II. As Hitler later stated to his General Staff: ‘Our enemies are worms. I saw them at Munich’. “Our efforts at compromise, contrition, accommodation and appeasement are perceived as symbolic of our weakness; and our attempts to find common cause with our enemies merely reinforce their belief that we are ‘paper tigers,’ to use bin Laden's term, and easy prey. ‘It is for this reason that good-will and confidence-building measures should be avoided at all costs,’ he says, as our Western cultural biases make it easy to misunderstand the true intentions of our enemies. “Our adversaries -- Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah -- see 'negotiations' and our desire for dialogue as opportunities to 'best others, to demonstrate power,' and to make certain that we know who is in control. Under such circumstances, goodwill and confidence-building measures by the West are interpreted as a lack of strength or resolve. Israel should not have been surprised when, in return for withdrawing from southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, it received terror in the form of increased suicide bombings and missile attacks on its civilian population. Nor, for that matter, should President Obama have been surprised when his many overtures to our enemies were seen as symptomatic of American weakness, vulnerability, lack of resolve and an opportunity for conquest in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere - which is why American foreign policy in the Middle East is in shambles. “As Rhode writes, such regimes are prepared to ‘negotiate’ only after they have defeated their enemies and established their superiority - at which point they need only dictate terms rather than negotiate them. “Contrary to the view of Western diplomats, ‘signaling a desire to talk before being victorious is [interpreted as] a sign of weakness or lack of will to win,’ and, in the view of our enemies, can only lead to an escalation of violence against them and invite demands for further concessions from them . - - - “Our diplomats may argue that dialogue is necessary to clarify ‘misunderstandings’ and to 'make amends for past injustices' real or imagined, but our enemies see it otherwise: we have created a credibility problem with our friends, and whetted the appetites of those who smell victory based upon our perceived weakness. “As Rhode also notes, in the wake of the Iranian hostage-taking crisis ‘Iran put the hostages on a plane less than an hour before Ronald Reagan became president. The hostages left Iranian airspace when Reagan raised his hand and took the oath of office. The Iranian ‘students’ believed Reagan was a cowboy and feared he would ‘level’ Tehran…… Interestingly, during the hostage crisis, a group of Iranian terrorists also occupied the Soviet embassy in Tehran. But they quickly left, because Moscow informed Tehran that if the Iranians did not leave the Soviet Embassy within hours, Tehran would be bombed,’ and they knew the Russians meant it. - - - “In the Arab-Persian world, those who seek to challenge us do not intend to be on the losing side. “As power, honor and humiliation are inextricably bound together in Iranian and Arab cultures, it may become necessary to destroy both national symbols, as well as leadership strongholds, of our adversaries. Only when they are convinced that we are serious in protecting our interests in the region, and show the strength of resolve expected of a superpower, will those who threaten us come on board. Neither Hitler nor Tojo would have stood before their nations at the end of World War II and proclaimed that ‘this was just a temporary setback.’ In both cases, national recognition of the humiliation and shame that flowed from their defeats allowed moderate elements in both Germany and Japan to assume the mantle of power and provide for a better future for their people –- including both nations subsequently being among the closest allies of the United States.” (Ref. 6) Only time will tell if the interim agreement with Iran will lead to a curbing of Iran's nuclear ambitions and a stop to its sponsorship of terrorism in the middle-east and elsewhere in the world. We can only hold our breath and hope. In the meantime, we should prepare for the worst. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:
|
| 5 December 2013 {Article 187; Islam_12} |