So much for O's grand, foreign policy legacy-clinching U.S.-Iranian "alliance":
As negotiators at Iran nuclear talks labored to make headway, the country's supreme leader called Saturday for the struggle against the U.S. to continue, in comments suggesting that Tehran's distrust of Washington will persist no matter what the outcome of the talks.
Which (1) has always been the case, (2) always WILL be the case, and (3) sums up why this entire twelve-year merry-go-round of futility was a fool's errand in the first place and every day since. The mullahs are our enemies - thirty-six years of shouting "DEATH TO AMERICA!!!!" and killing hundreds of Americans from Beirut in 1983 to Khobar Towers in 1996 to the battlefields of Iraq is a pretty long and bloody baseline - and not only is that never going to change, but there's no incentive we could offer them that would change their minds, and which they wouldn't promptly turn against us. Like, for example, state-of-the-art nuclear weapons technology.
The negotiations entered their fifteenth day Saturday with no indications of major progress after three extensions and four target dates for a deal, and diplomats said it remained unclear whether an agreement could be reached by Monday, the latest deadline.
Or ever, because (1) they are convinced that there is no end to the concessions they can wring out of Obama and (2) if there does turn out to be a line beyond which even this Regime cannot be bullied, the mullahs, as the "strong horse" in this scenario, can and will simply walk away, knowing that The One will wildly chase after them shouting, "WAIT!!!! COME BACK!!!!!"
Iran and the U.S. have threatened to walk away unless the other side makes concessions. Although it was unclear whether Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was preparing the ground for the failure of the talks, his comments were likely to add to skepticism over the outcome at the negotiating table.
I don't think so. What would "failure of the talks" mean for the mullahs? That implies that they in any way, shape, or form have been negotiating in good faith on any level, and were going to comply with whatever terms were agreed to. Neither is the case. The only purposes Tehran has ever had for participating in this ridiculous farce has been to (1) buy time to build their nuclear arsenal and (2) get the economic sanctions lifted. They've already reaped both in obscene quantities, as well as "deal" terms that are so hilariously lopsided in their favor that they almost CAN'T cheat on them, but will still manage to do so anyway.
In short, there's no such thing as a "failure of the talks" for Iran, insofar as the "talks" have had any relevance to their belligerent and imperialistic foreign policy intentions.
Iran's state-run Press TV cited Khamenei as calling the U.S. an "excellent example of arrogance." It said Khamenei told university students in Tehran to be "prepared to continue the struggle against arrogant powers."
That will be the case, "deal" or no "deal". The only difference is how much of an upper hand we'll have given the Iranians in the war to come. And that's always been the point: War with Iran is, and always has been, inevitable. In fact, they've been at war with us since 1979, just at a low intensity level punctuated by big terrorist strikes. Now we are providing them with the means to escalate that intensity level exponentially. And all in an effort to negotiate the opposite result that was always irrelevant, futile, and foolish.
Even if Khamenei isn't signaling that the talks have failed, his comments appear to be a blow to U.S. hopes that an agreement will lead to improved bilateral relations that could translate into increased cooperation in a common cause — the fight against Islamic radicals.
Same enemy, vastly different reasons. To the mullahs, ISIS is a rival for control of the Middle East in the short term and, ultimately, of the Global Caliphate. But both seek the complete annihilation of the United States and the West. Thus is the conflict in Iraq and Syria essentially the same strategic calculation as the "red lines" fiasco in Syria vis a vie Bashir Assad two years ago: both warring factions are our enemies, and thus we have no "dog in the fight". If we're going to intervene, we must do so with overwhelming force with the objective of destroying both.
And since both are coming for us anyway regardless of whether we want to be at war with them, that would make it very logistically convenient.
The punchline? Barack Obama thinks he's got a say in the matter. It is to laugh - in the most gallows of senses.
No comments:
Post a Comment