by Yoram Ettinger
According to the daily voice of the Saudi king, the ayatollah regime "is like a monster that was tied to a tree and has been set loose. We are on a threshold of a bloody era ... expecting the worst-case scenario
Irrespective of Western
attempts to portray Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Jordan and Egypt as
supporters of the Iran nuclear deal, leaders of these countries, and
especially the House of Saud, consider the accord a colossal, lethal
threat. They see it as a reckless, short-sighted and self-destructive
policy, which will initially plague the Arab world and subsequently the
Western one, including the U.S. -- "the Great Satan" as the ayatollahs
call it.
While Saudi leaders are
restrained in their official reaction to the Iran nuclear agreement,
they voice their authentic concerns and assessments via the House of
Saud-owned media, which has traditionally served as a convenient venue,
providing the element of deniability, sparing diplomatic inconvenience.
During a recent visit
to Capitol Hill, I was told by legislators in both chambers, on both
sides of the aisle: "While Israel is concerned about Iran's
nuclearization, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are panicky."
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed,
the House of Saud-appointed general manager of Al Arabiya TV and former
editor-in-chief of the leading Saudi daily Asharq Al-Awsat, dismissed
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's assertion that "once fully
implemented, the Iran deal will contribute to the region's long-term
security."
According to the daily
voice of the Saudi king, the ayatollah regime "is like a monster that
was tied to a tree and has been set loose. We are on a threshold of a
bloody era ... expecting the worst-case scenario. ... Tehran does not
intend to drop its aims of regional dominance and destabilizing
neighboring Arab countries. The lifting of sanctions will facilitate the
transfer of funds and the purchase and shipment of arms [to terror
organizations]. ... Tehran will become more dangerous."
Asharq Al-Awsat opinion
page editor Mshari Al-Zaydi highlights a constructive alternative to
the current Iran nuclear deal: the preconditioning of any benefit to the
ayatollahs on a drastic transformation of the nature of their regime.
The confidant of the House of Saud stated: "The real problem lies in the
nature of Iran's rulers and the money that will flood the coffers of
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. It will cause more strife in Arab
countries. ... Iran's constitution calls for funding and arming militias
loyal to Iran within Arab and Muslim countries. Washington will soon
realize the consequences of their Iranian adventure."
At this junction, in an
increasingly globalized world, and against the backdrop of the
ayatollahs' apocalyptic "Death to America" worldview and close ties with
North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, the commercial, energy,
national and homeland security consequences of the Iran nuclear
agreement transcend the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Arab
world. The implications of the game-changing agreement extend to the
Western world, impacting Latin America, Mexico and every congressional
district in the U.S.
In 2015, Kerry is
attempting to assuage the concerns of the American people by portraying
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif as moderates. He fails to note that they were handpicked by
the ayatollahs, happily serving as their mouthpieces, due to their
mastery of taqiyya (Islam-sanctioned double-talk and deception,
especially when dealing with "infidels"). Upon concluding the current
negotiation, Kerry praised Zarif, Iran's charmer-in-chief, as "a tough
negotiator and a patriot," adding, "We approached these negotiations
with mutual respect."
During the 1990s and
until the eruption of the civil war in Syria, Kerry was a member of a
small group of senators who considered Syrian President Hafez Assad and
his son and successor Bashar Assad -- otherwise treated as pariahs by
the West -- to be moderate, constructive, potentially pro-U.S. and
trustworthy. He prodded Israel to cede the strategically critical Golan
Heights to Syria. Kerry was a frequent visitor to Damascus, asserting on
March 16, 2011: "My judgment is that Syria will change as it embraces a
legitimate relationship with the U.S. and the West and economic
opportunities that come with it."
Kerry considered PLO
Chairman Yasser Arafat a messenger of peace, embraced the anti-U.S.
Muslim Brotherhood, dumped Egypt's pro-U.S. President Hosni Mubarak,
turned a cold shoulder toward the country's current pro-U.S. President
Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, and referred to the violently intolerant Arab
tsunami as the Arab Spring, "the new Arab awakening," transitioning from
tyranny to democracy, the Facebook revolution and the reincarnation of
Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Refuting Kerry's
hope-driven policy, Amir Taheri, a senior Asharq Al-Awsat columnist and a
leading expert on Persian Gulf politics, underlined Persian Gulf
reality: "The assumption that the Rafsanjani/Rouhani faction is
interested in reforms is far-fetched. ... In the third year of Rouhani's
presidency the number of prisoners of conscience has almost doubled
along with the number of executions; political parties and trade unions
remain banned; more publications have been shut than under [former
Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad; exporting terror has intensified
with a 32% rise in the budget of the Quds Force, which controls Iran's
terror network. ... Kerry is chasing a dangerous fantasy: helping a
regime in deep crisis regain its bearings and do more mischief at home
and abroad."
Echoing Saudi concerns
that the Iran nuclear agreement dramatically bolsters the rogue
ayatollah regime, precludes a regime change and erodes U.S. posture of
deterrence, the veteran columnist adds: "The deal strengthens the
radical hardliners in Tehran, who believe that they have carte blanche
to pursue their imperial dream. ... [U.S. President Barack Obama's and
Kerry's] diplomacy has made the world a much more dangerous place."
The U.S. power
projection, which is essential for global stability, is further
undermined when Obama evokes former President John F. Kennedy's Test Ban
Treaty with the USSR -- an adversarial, nuclear superpower, deterred by
mutually assured destruction -- to market the nuclear deal with Iran.
Iran is a medium-size conventional power, a rogue, non-compliant,
apocalyptic regime, not deterred by MAD, seeking capabilities to
devastate "the arrogant, infidel, Great Satan." While Kennedy's policy
constrained the bullish policies of the USSR, the Iran nuclear deal
fuels the ayatollah's bullishness, significantly enhancing their
financial and military capabilities, thus intensifying global
instability.
Yoram Ettinger
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=13423
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment