Iran nuclear talks like bargaining with the devil |
Featured Commentary

Iran nuclear talks like bargaining with the devil

Having missed a July deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the six world powers party to the talks — the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany — have set Nov. 24 as their new deadline. Iran says there will be no extension if a deal isn’t reached.

Given the Obama administration’s horrible record in the Middle East, things don’t look good for an agreement that will curtail or reverse Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

An indication of what the Obama administration hopes to achieve in these talks came from Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. In remarks to a liberal group last January obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, Rhodes said: “This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is health care for us, just to put it in context.”

Burnishing a president’s legacy is not a sufficient reason to trade away American and Israeli security.

Because of our secular diplomats’ refusal to believe the religious motivations of Iran’s leaders, the United States has placed itself at a disadvantage.

The latest example of this denial is found in the current issue of The Economist. In a special report titled “The Revolution is Over,” the article says, “Iran has changed” and its “revolutionary fire has been extinguished.” In addition, “the traditional religious society that the mullahs dreamt of has receded” and “pragmatic centrists” are on the rise. Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait adds, “We believe the prospects of a deal — if not now, eventually — are improving.”

Come again? This is part of the wishful thinking that will allow Iran to produce and possibly use a nuclear weapon against Israel and threaten Europe and the U.S.

The problem with the West’s attitude toward Iran is that it refuses to take seriously the messianic statements driving Iran’s foreign policy. One question Westerners cannot answer is this: Why would people who believe they have a direct command from their god to eradicate Israel and take down the West disobey that god and negotiate an agreement with “infidels” and especially a country they label “The Great Satan”?

Some Muslim clerics claim the Quran gives them the right to lie to “infidels” in pursuit of their goals, so how do we know they are not lying when they claim their nuclear objectives are peaceful? If Iran’s intentions are truly peaceful, what’s to negotiate?

Time magazine has assembled some of the more incendiary comments by Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. Time writes, “He calls America ‘the devil incarnate’ with plans for ‘evil domination of Iran.’ Negotiating with the United States, he said in 2009, would be ‘naive and perverted.’ He warns that the west is plotting to ‘arouse sexual desires’ in Islamic Iran, because ‘if they spread unrestrained mixing of men and women … there will no longer be any need for artillery and guns.’”

Last month, according to the Washington Free Beacon, “At least two former Iranian nuclear negotiators joined with Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers and anti-Semites from across the globe … in Tehran for Iran’s second annual New Horizons conference, an anti-American hate fest that U.S. lawmakers say highlights the country’s dangerous duplicity.”

Tell me, how do you negotiate with that?

Cal Thomas is a columnist for USA Today.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.