On Sunday morning with American hostages on their way home, President Obama hailed the new era of diplomacy with Iran that he has brought into being as being responsible for their freedom. He’s right about that, although it might also be added that their imprisonment and exorbitant ransom is also the product of his détente policy. But, as if putting a fig leaf on a negotiating process that reaped enormous rewards for Iran while giving the United States little in return, he also noted that the administration was imposing new sanctions on the Islamist regime. The sanctions are limited to 11 entities and individuals involved in procuring the missiles for Tehran. They are also a mere pinprick compared to the more comprehensive sanctions that are being lifted today as the nuclear deal goes into effect. If it is as the president says, “a good day,” that is only true for the hostages and the Iranians. From the point of view of the interests of America and its allies, it is a terrible day.
The belated imposition of the missile sanctions was clearly part of the administration’s efforts to avoid antagonizing Iran. The release of the hostages was clearly linked to the lifting of the international sanctions that were part of the nuclear deal. But, as they have during the three years of talks that led up to this moment, the Iranians stood their ground and drove a hard bargain. No Americans would go free until the Iranians were paid off in the form of more than $100 billion in unfrozen funds and countless billions more that will accrue to them once the floodgates are opened for business to pour in. As our Michael Rubin wrote earlier today, the administration has incentivized hostage taking. Just as tellingly, the Iranians only paid off in the hostages whose whereabouts were already known. Nothing was heard today in Washington or Tehran about ex-CIA contractor Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007 and is believed to be the longest-held hostage in U.S. history. It is inconceivable that the Islamist regime has no idea of where he is or what his fate might be.
But Levinson, like the hostages who were released, is mere collateral damage to an Obama administration that is besotted with the idea of Iran détente. While we share the joy of the families of those who have been sprung from captivity, we should never forget that the process by which that happy result was achieved was predicated on a series of concessions by which the U.S. abandoned each of its positions on Iran’s nuclear program. In October 2012, President Obama said in his foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney that any deal would mean the end of Iran’s nuclear program. Within two years that promise was reinterpreted to mean that Iran could keep its program, its most advanced centrifuges, and research capabilities, never fully reveal the extent of the military dimensions of its work and that all restrictions on its activities would end in a decade. Iran would also not be required to end its ballistic missile production or cease its support for terror and threats to destroy Israel while getting a huge financial windfall that would strengthen its military and ability to use terrorism to advance its push for regional hegemony. In exchange for this, Obama was able to point to his hope that this forestalls the nuclear threat for ten years and eventually get four Americans released.
As for the new sanctions, they are better than nothing but still essentially meaningless.The appeasement that preceded this gesture speaks more loudly than anything the Treasury Department might accomplish now. Sanctioning the individuals involved in missile procurement does nothing to impede that program. Moreover, separating out such individuals is also foolish since the main forces driving this activity are the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard Corps that controls much of the defense and business establishment inside the country. Announcing the sanctions gives the impression that the U.S. is serious about holding Iran accountable. But their limited reach and everything that has preceded this day can only convince Tehran that it can do as it pleases. Whether that means further missile violations or illicit nuclear activity, it’s doubtful that President Obama has the will to do anything about it. In the coming years, as a result of Western largesse, Iran will grow stronger as the axis of its allies
All of which means that the issue of how the next administration will treat Iran is vital not only to the security of the United States but to that of the entire world.
Though some of the candidates have talked tough about Iran, no one should labor under the delusion that reversing Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement will be as easy as issuing a statement on their first day in office.
Likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton says she wants to hold Iran accountable and, to her credit, even mentioned Levinson’s fate today. But as a key member of Obama’s foreign policy team, she has zero credibility on the issue. Once in office, she will be wedded to the nuclear deal and isn’t likely to do anything to disrupt it or start rolling back Iran’s gains around the region.
As for the Republicans, all denounce the deal, but the idea that it can be renegotiated (as Donald Trump imagines) or be effectively rolled back without a major commitment to defeating terrorist forces on the ground in the region (as some like Ted Cruz seem to think) or without the help of U.S. allies that have been allowed to check out on the struggle with Tehran, is short-sighted.
This is a gloomy prospect that U.S. allies, like Israel and the Arab governments that are equally afraid of Tehran, can only view with dismay. Though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said today his country will “monitor Iran,” that is more of a wish than a plan. Without a U.S. government completely committed to combating Iran’s push for hegemony and post-deal nuclear plans, there is little that Israel will be able to do on its own.
In other words, today’s minimal sanctions may be just the start of a new era of pretend accountability for Iran that will end only when the world is no longer able to ignore the reality of Tehran’s power. The announcement was a classic bait and switch intended to deceive Americans but which Iran understood all too well. All of which means that rather than looking back on the enactment of these measures as the moment when the U.S. began to reassert itself, it will, instead, be thought of as the commencement of the “good day” when yet another chance to halt the Iranian juggernaut was lost.
