Op-Ed: Obama's Nebulous Nuclear Sellout Leads to Iran War
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ( NPT) does not explicitly cite a "right" to enrich uranium, and how the US and other powers resolve this dispute has implications beyond Iran.
The relationship between countries is all about interests and security. When tyrants and pariah states threatens Israel's existence or survival, safeguarding the integrity and interests of the Jewish people through diplomacy or war is of paramount importance.
Although it would be difficult for Iran to give up its controversial nuclear program, the benefits of peaceful diplomacy supersede the risks of war. In looking at Iran, the most important thing to understand is the difference between its rhetoric and its actions.
The goal of the 1979 Islamic revolution is first and foremost, regime survival. For this reason, Iranian foreign policy, as opposed to rhetoric, has been extremely measured. Now, after a decades-long nuclear gambit of hide-and-seek, Iran faces a choice between a "bomb" or survival.
As the six world powers prepare to resume high-level talks in Geneva later this month, Obama's nebulous nuclear sellout warning that stiffer sanctions could lead America into a march to war is alarmist and misleading.
In reality, the White House warning US lawmakers that additional tightened sanctions now on Iran would be a mistake is a diplomatic ploy to conceal Iran's nuclear bluff.
Given Obama's obsession to clinch a speedy nuclear breakthrough at the expense of Israel, an interim deal that falls short of dismantling Iran's nuclear program might trigger sanctions collapse.
US Secretary of State John Kerry's incitement that Israel faced the possibility of international isolation and a third Palestinian intifada if the talks with the Palestinian Authority (PA) failed was irrelevant, misguided and counterproductive.
The lack of progress in negotiations between Israel and the PA has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program. Beyond that, the negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs is a diversion timed to stall Israeli military action.
Therefore, it is imperative that it is realized that, in order to prevent war, the only way to curb Iran's nuclear ambition is to impose additional sanctions and to strengthen the existing sanctions.
Under current circumstances, the lost of US credibility is not conducive to peaceful negotiations. Peace is attainable only when the world powers can disarm a nuclear Iran. Reaching a permanent peace deal with the Palestinians is practically impossible.
From Israel's perspective, Obama offering Iran some "modest" and "reversible" steps to ease the pain of some sanctions as part of an interim deal -- is an "historic mistake."
Israeli sources claim that Iran's illicit nuclear program has cost the country $170 billion, mostly due to tough economic sanctions. However, recent reports that the Obama administration has already been easing sanctions on Iran for the past 5 months without congressional approval is a lot of malarkey.
Granting that sanctions are the best way to avoid war, Tehran's "red line" to enrich uranium and Obama's "secret" nuclear deal with the ayatollahs-- will not prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon.
On the contrary, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty ( NPT) does not explicitly cite a "right" to enrich uranium, and how the US and other powers resolve this dispute has implications beyond Iran.
Keeping Iran's nuclear infrastructure and uranium enrichment generally intact will render the NPT ineffectual and irrelevant.
As far as Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are concerned, Tehran will not give up its nuclear program. Saudi Arabia's unprecedented rejection of a seat on the UN Security Council 'underscored the depth of Saudi anger over what the monarchy sees as weak and conciliatory Western stances toward Syria and Iran'.
Moreover, the US Senate Banking Committee "mulling a new sanctions package" reinforces those concerns. Incredibly, Obama asking for a "temporary pause in sanctions" is illogical and appalling.
Why is this happening now?
The prospect of this new emerging US-Iranian nuclear detente would have to be taken seriously. Of course, nobody knows how these dubious nuclear diplomacy will evolve.
One thing is certain: an interim deal if signed, would endanger Israel’s security. Israel will not accept a nuclear deal "because it would mean the destruction of the State of Israel".
To make matters worse, Israel will have to unilaterally attack Iranian nuclear sites at any cost, while there is still time to do so.
Contrary to Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah's warning of wider regional war, Israel's "swift" pre-emptive strike against Iran could bring stability and peace in the volatile Middle East.
Also, it is important to recognize that Obama's waffling is a red flag that cannot simply be ignored. The "uncertain and still secret" nuclear deal in exchange for an illusion of peace for Iran not to build a nuclear weapon was a calculated diplomatic hoax.
For obvious reasons, the Obama administration behavior of punishing its allies and rewarding its enemies is not just a shocking coincidence. Team Obama's faulty "doctrine of leading from behind", has given Israel no choice but to cross the Persian Gulf to neutralize the Iranian threat, once and for all.
Only Congress can end sanctions regime
No doubt about it: the crippling sanctions and the looming shadow of threat of military force is what brought the Islamic republic to the negotiating table.
Faced with insurmountable odds, Israel's lobbying US congressional support against a "dangerous" nuclear deal really makes a lot of sense - and it may work.
However, Iran's negotiating sanctions relief with the White House was a mistake: To end sanctions, Tehran needs to convince Congress.
"These legislative developments are significant, for some of the most effective economic sanctions against Iran are anchored in U.S. law — not in executive orders." Therefore, Obama's "prosecutorial discretion is limited when it comes to economic sanctions."
Furthermore, "a Senate move on stricter sanctions could torpedo any preliminary deal the White House might negotiate with Iran."
Unless Tehran starts a multi-front war it couldn't win, it was not necessary for Israel to sign a treaty of military alliance with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and other Arab Gulf states to act together.
After all, it is in the best interests of these Sunni Arab countries, who are finding common ground with Israel against a Shiite Iran.
Again, the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) report "that Iran had frozen its nuclear activities" is another diplomatic travesty, "because [Iran] already possesses the necessary infrastructure for building a nuclear weapon."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "Iran is in dire economic straits and we can negotiate a better deal. Before easing the sanctions, we need to get a good deal, not a bad deal."
And rightly so, because Netanyahu believes that a "bad deal" between global powers and Iran over its nuclear program could lead to war.
Avigdor Lieberman's reinstatement as foreign minister is likely to harden the tone of Israeli diplomacy.
Netanyahu once said, "Leadership in the absence of a threat is very difficult, but leadership in the presence of a clearly defined threat is a no-brainer."
The writer was clinical research-physician-general surgeon for Saudi Arabian, Philippine and American healthcare systems and is currently an American freelance writer as well as op-ed contributor.