The circumstances surrounding the extension of the year-long negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 powers (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) over the Iranian nuclear program and a statement by Iran’s supreme leader publicly mocking the United States should serve as wake-up calls to President Obama.
The president’s longtime effort to end the 35-year estrangement between the U.S. and Iran that began with the overthrow of the shah in 1979 lies in tatters. It should now be clear to even the deepest dreamers that Iran is on a quest for regional dominance and a key place in the international arena and has no intention of voluntarily giving up a nuclear weapons capacity that is the indispensable underpinning of such roles.
It will be recalled that there were those who, given Iran’s adamant twelve-year refusal to heed the call of the U.S. and other major powers to limit its nuclear program and accept monitoring (to enable verification of its claim that its nuclear ambitions were peaceful in nature), urged a military solution to the impasse. President Obama, however, famously said he wanted to give diplomacy one more chance and, indeed, led an international effort to impose severe economic sanctions on Iran until it complied with Western demands. This tightening of the economic noose was followed by the initiation of direct talks between Iran and the P5+1 with the aim of achieving a formal agreement setting limits and providing for verification of Iran’s claims.
Mr. Obama repeatedly assured those skeptical about the worth of negotiations that a military option remained on the table despite the continuing diplomatic efforts. “It is absolutely clear that words are not sufficient. We take no options off the table, including military options,” he publicly declared to a doubting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and to the world.
In sum, the widely held view was that the severe sanctions had forced Iran into negotiations and the threat of military action would force it to accept an agreement largely on Western terms – and that if disagreements persisted, it would be Iran that would be desperate for more time to negotiate.
Yet precisely the opposite occurred.
For weeks reports had circulated that after more than a year of discussions there were still “big gaps” between the two sides and that the agreed-upon November 24deadline for an agreement was out of reach. So one might have thought the Iranians would be anxious to extend the talks. But on November 23the U.S. proposed that the deadline be extended. Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters that some “new ideas surfaced” and that “we would be fools to walk away.” Nothing was heard about any Iranian agitation for an extension. Then came the announcement of a seven-month extension.
Why the turnaround? For one thing, the Iranians have stonewalled since the onset of the negotiations and paid no apparent penalty. Consider also that on June 4, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that a “military attack is not a priority for Americans now…. They have renounced the idea of military actions.”
Perhaps he was responding to President Obama’s remarks two weeks earlier at the graduation ceremonies at West Point: “The military that you have joined is, and always will be, the backbone of that leadership. But U.S. military action cannot be the only – or even primary – component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
To be sure, Iran’s stonewalling had characterized the negotiations for the better part of a year, but the boldness of the ayatollah’s comment was striking.