Joel Cairo’s Journal – December 6, 2014

Joel Cairo 1

The recent breakdown in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear ambitions was, if anything, predictable. It is a problem that exists in the mind of many western diplomats that the other side in a negotiation has the same goal as they do, and therefore, they proceed from that position. But what they often ignore, or are just plan ignorant of is that the other side frequently has different motivations. This can be seen in the actions of Neville Chamberlain at the infamous Munich conference where his goal of averting war did not correspond with Hitler’s desire to control the vast majority of Europe. Chamberlain returned with the supposed promise of “peace in our time” which was a false promise.


With Iran, the deal, as perceived by the West is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. Iran, however, has such development as a top priority. They are intent on becoming a world-class military power with the ability to blackmail essentially anyone and make itself impervious to attack for fear of a nuclear reprisal. Thus, Iran’s intent is not to arrive at an agreement, but to stretch the talks out as long as possible while the development continues. Eventually it will be too late for anyone to do anything and Iran will have won by pretending to negotiate in good faith. The false assumption here is that Iran wants peace just as much as any other nation. But Iran is intent on creating a world war in the hope of fulfilling its messianic dreams and will continue on its course unless prevented.


In addition to this problem there is another that should be understood very well, but generally is not. Deals in this part of the world are largely a matter of convenience and temporary advantages. A deal is a deal only until a better deal comes along, at which point alliances shift, intentions change and the parties who think that they were in one position suddenly find themselves in another.


Thus, a quote by likely Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, that no deal is better than a bad deal with Iran is essentially correct, however, it also depends on what action happens afterward. A non-deal where there are no consequences will be valueless. At the same time, it should be understood that the consequences must be real, and must impact the nuclear development. Understand, that obtaining nuclear weapons is the mullah’s number one priority and that they will be willing to let everything else be destroyed if they can obtain the ability to threaten the rest of the world.  So, sanctions are effectively of no value. This must also be understood by all the concerned parties.


But one must also realize that Mrs. Clinton, for all her bluster and her one correct statement is unlikely to make the correct decisions here. In addition, the transfer of revenue from military preparedness to the welfare state and public benefits makes the United States less viable as a threat and thereby, less useful as an international peacekeeper. And with the nations of Europe depending on the USA for defense, when that nation is degrading its military capacity makes them less able to defend themselves while depending on a paper eagle. So, the world may well be spiraling into another major war while the only people truly expecting it are the instigators. The West, if it does not change its view and resulting actions, could wind up in as bad shape as the unfortunate Floyd Thursby.


Comments are closed.