“I would anticipate that even in the event of a return to compliance with the JCPOA, hundreds of sanctions will remain in place, including sanctions imposed by the Trump administration,” he said, hastily adding, “If they are not inconsistent with the JCPOA, they will remain unless and until Iran’s behavior changes.”
However, he acknowledged, “We don’t know at this stage whether Iran is willing and able to do what it would need to do to come back into compliance.”
America’s top diplomat may have caused news outlets around the world to highlight what could have been misconstrued as a hard-line stance toward the regime in Tehran, but he wasn’t fooling anybody else, least of all the ayatollahs. The very fact that he referred to an Iranian “return to compliance” to the deal it never upheld is sufficient cause for them to hold their ground and allow the West to grovel. You know, just as it did when Barack Obama was in the White House and intent on reaching the disastrous agreement in the first place.
It’s important to note that Blinken’s remarks came a day after International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Grossi bemoaned the Islamic Republic’s refusal to cooperate with him on anything related to nuclear activity.
“I reiterate the requirement for Iran to clarify and resolve these issues without further delay by providing information, documentation and answers to the agency’s questions,” he told the IAEA Board of Governors. “The lack of progress in clarifying the agency’s questions concerning the correctness and completeness of Iran’s safeguards declarations seriously affects the ability of the agency to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.”
There’s a hoot. The nuclear watchdog can’t guarantee the “peaceful nature” of a program designed to obtain atomic bombs with which to achieve regional and global hegemony. Still, for the head of a UN body to go that far rhetorically is significant.
Grossi’s probably furious with the powers-that-be in Iran for boasting in April about enriching uranium to 60% – much closer to weapons-grade purity than the 20% it had previously achieved – and then exceeding that number in May by an additional 3%.
Of course, there’s always Israel to blame for the move, which Iran and others promptly did.
In the immediate aftermath of the April 11 explosion that rocked the Natanz nuclear site, where new and advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuges had just reportedly been activated, Iranian officials accused the Jewish state of “nuclear terrorism.”
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif vowed that his country would “take revenge.” President Hassan Rouhani then announced that the form this retaliation against the “wicked perpetrators” would take was enhanced uranium enrichment.
Laughably, after issuing the threat on which he quickly made good, Rouhani professed that all Iran’s nuclear activities were nevertheless strictly “peaceful.”
Clearly, the IAEA didn’t think so. Nor did France, Germany and Britain, which announced that Iran had “no credible civilian need for enrichment at this level.” And that was before Tehran exceeded its own goal, reaching 63% mere weeks later.
Despite reports that Iran’s behavior was “injecting uncertainty” into the West’s efforts to salvage the JCPOA, negotiations began and have proceeded in the Austrian capital since then. Somehow, no matter what Iran does – regardless of alarm bells sounded in Washington and Brussels – the talks must go on. As was the case in the lead-up to the original deal, the stated purpose of the pow-wows is to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. But the true aim, like that of the last time around, is to secure ink on a document that won’t be worth the paper.
ISRAEL ISN’T the only country wary of the goings-on behind closed doors in Vienna. The Gulf states that openly allied themselves with Israel through the Abraham Accords – and other Mideast countries, like Saudi Arabia, tacitly doing so as part of a joint attempt to curb Iran’s pernicious agenda – are equally concerned.
Their worry is certainly justified, particularly in view of another disturbing development. US State Department staffers were sent inter-office e-mails a few months ago discouraging them from using the official title of the historic peace agreements brokered by former president Donald Trump between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
According to The Washington Free Beacon (freebeacon.com), which reviewed two such memos, no reason was given for the directive. When asked about it, a spokesman told the news site that the State Department “would refer to the Abraham Accords as such.”
Subsequently, an official speaking on background told the outlet, “This administration is not focused on what these agreements are called, but what they mean.”
When questioned about this policy, Blinken told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Monday, “It’s certainly not coming from me. I’m happy to refer to them as the Abraham Accords. I think they were an important achievement, one that not only do we support, but we’d like to build on.”
Perhaps he hadn’t heard a recent exchange on the matter between Associated Press diplomatic correspondent Matthew Lee and State Department spokesman Ned Price, after rumors began circulating about the nixing of the official name of the accords that – to the dismay of the Left – didn’t include the Palestinians.
During Price’s daily briefing with reporters on April 1, as he waxed poetic about the administration doing “everything we can to advance the prospects for a two-state solution,” Lee pressed him on whether a special envoy would be appointed to pursue Israel’s “engagement with the Arab world.”
Price replied that there are “many people throughout our government who are focused on this process of normalization. That’s something that we very much support.”
Forcing Price into a corner, Lee went on: “Okay. And then, just as an aside, what do you call these agreements?”
“They’re normalization agreements,” Price replied.
“Yeah,” said Lee. “But what is the name for them?”
“Normalization agreements,” Price repeated.
“No,” Lee prodded, not letting up. “There’s a specific name that they all signed onto. I believe you know what it is.”
Miffed, Price retorted, “Look, we call them normalization agreements. That’s precisely what they are.”
“Why don’t you use the name that the leaders of these countries signed onto, which is the Abraham Accords?” Lee challenged.
“I’m not averse to using that,” Price claimed. “I’m describing what these are. These are normalization... ”
“Well, then, can you say it for me, please?” Lee goaded.
“Of course I can say the term ‘Abraham Accords,’ Matt,” Price stated testily. “But we call them normalization agreements.”
Why, other than being the fruit of former president Donald Trump’s and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s labors, would a Mideast peace deal named after the figure common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam pose a problem for the new administration in Washington?
The clue to the conundrum lies in the false hope that President Joe Biden’s team harbors about wooing Iran and its murderous Palestinian proxies through a combination of cash and appeasement. Critics observing the disastrous consequences of Obama’s similar dream fear that Biden is following the same failed path of his former boss.
What they don’t realize is that Obama actually succeeded in his mission to weaken America and punish Israel for sharing its values. Surrounded by an ever-radicalizing Democratic Party and advisers whispering dubious nothings in his ear, Biden is charging full speed ahead down the road paved by Obama and disrupted by Trump.
Iran and the Palestinians are reveling in and counting on it.