The Islamist regime that governs Iran is still behaving as if it did not just lose a devastating war. Over the past two years, Israel has systematically destroyed Iran’s terrorist proxies, air defense, and missile capabilities, and then Israel and the U.S. set back its nuclear weapons program by years or decades in an intensive air bombardment. Already, the vanquished is presuming to engage with the victors on an equal footing.
The most recent example came in a speech Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi gave this weekend to diplomats in Tehran, in which he condescendingly allowed that Iran is ready to re-engage with the U.S. in talks over the future of its nuclear program and potential sanctions relief — but only if all of Iran’s conditions are met. He demanded “assurance … that, in case of a resumption of talks, the trend will not lead to war.”
“First of all,” Araghchi insisted, “there should be a firm guarantee that such actions [as the U.S. bombing of its nuclear facilities] will not be repeated. The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations.”
On June 21, the U.S. military executed a stunning campaign that dropped high-powered bombs on Iran’s top three nuclear sites, burying the bunkers deep under rubble without Iran ever knowing what hit them. In an interview published Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian admitted the U.S. airstrikes so damaged the sites that Iran still has not been able to assess the extent of the destruction.
The stunning operation came after months of fruitless negotiations, in which Iranian negotiators would agree to little more than the next meeting. Despite the strict deadline President Trump imposed up front, the Iranian regime never budged from the position that it would continue enriching uranium to nearly-weapons-grade levels as fast as possible.
In other words, Araghchi’s remarks were merely a crude attempt to rewrite history. There never was any hope “to achieve a solution based on negotiations.” The only solution acceptable to President Donald Trump is one in which the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear weapons program and stockpiles of enriched uranium. The only solution Iran envisioned is one in which it would become a nuclear-armed power.
Only after this impasse became abundantly apparent did President Trump resort to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Far from “difficult and complicated,” this presented an easy and simple solution to the problem, at least so far as America’s priorities went.
Furthermore, with Iran’s nuclear weapons program set back by years, there was no longer any point to America continuing the negotiations, nor offering the possibility of sanctions relief. Negotiations were not an end in themselves, but merely a tool that served as a means to the end of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Trump found another, easier means to that end, so further negotiations would be, from the American perspective, a means to nothing.
Araghchi offered to re-enter negotiations with the U.S., on the condition that America pledge not to bomb their nuclear sites again. In other words, he demands that America voluntarily forgo the most effective means to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in exchange for another means that never offered much promise. This gets the priority of the objectives exactly backward, pretending that the negotiations were an end in themselves, and not a means to achieve something else.
The one possible advantage to a negotiated solution is that it would offer a more permanent resolution. Instead of setting Iran back by years or decades, at which point their nuclear program would again become a threat, a negotiated solution would cause Iran to desist from its efforts to build a nuclear weapon, thus eliminating the future threat.
But this would require the Iranian regime to operate in good faith in negotiating and implementing the dissolution of its nuclear weapons program, something they have not demonstrated a willingness to do.
Ever since 2003, Iran has quarreled with U.N. nuclear inspectors over the lack of transparency in its program — a quarrel that culminated in June when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors officially found Iran in non-compliance. Iran reacted defiantly by declaring its intention to expand its non-compliance by opening yet another uranium enrichment site, at which point Israel began its devastating bombardment. Even since America’s bombing run literally buried the program, Iranian officials have repeatedly declared their intention to exhume and resuscitate the country’s nuclear program.
Iranian lawmakers revealed the regime’s true intentions last month, when they enacted legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, thus violating their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As the bill received final approval, lawmakers broke out into chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” — suggesting that any proposals to find “a solution based on negotiations” with the regime’s two great adversaries are insincere.
Fortunately, President Trump does not seem to be giving any serious consideration to Iran’s silly offer. Last week, a reporter asked, “What might make you have the desire to do another strike on Iran?” (The answer is painfully obvious — a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program — but perhaps the reporter is in the habit of asking questions to which she knows the answer.)
In response, Trump declined even to engage the idea of sidelining America’s most important piece of leverage, responding, “I hope we’re not going to have to do that. I can’t imagine wanting to do that. I can’t imagine them wanting to do that. They want to meet. They want to work something out.” As for America, Trump already achieved the objective of taking Iran’s nuclear threat off the table, and he wouldn’t be afraid to do it again.
AUTHOR
Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.
The post Iranian Regime Still Living in an Alternate Universe appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Family Research Council
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://drrichswier.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.