By: Clifford D. May
There’s nothing wrong with wishful thinking — unless it gets confused with serious thinking. Policymakers and legislators have a professional responsibility to resist that temptation.
Yes, I have something in mind: A letter sent last week signed by 131 House members [including Bay State Reps. Michael Capuano, James McGovern, Richard Neal, John Tierney and Niki Tsongas] urging President Obama to “pursue the potential opportunity presented by Iran’s recent presidential election.” Hasan Rouhani, the new president-elect, they say, “campaigned on the promise to ‘pursue a policy of reconciliation and peace’ and has since promised ‘constructive interaction with the outside world.’ ”
Should we not expect American politicians (of all people!) to demonstrate a little skepticism when it comes to “promises” made by an Iranian politician? And how much research is required to figure out that Rouhani has said nothing even to suggest that he opposes Iran’s support for terrorism abroad, gross violations of human rights at home, threats of genocide against Israelis and, of course, an illegal nuclear weapons program?
There is a lot we don’t know about Rouhani, but this much is obvious: He’s a political clergyman, a loyal acolyte of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader and self-proclaimed “shadow of God upon Earth.” Were that not so, Khamenei would not permit Rouhani to become Iran’s president. Remember: There were 686 registered candidates for the last election. Only eight were allowed to run.
There are ways in which Rouhani is different. He speaks our language. He studied in Scotland. He certainly has insights into the peculiar psychology of the Westerner — which may explain why, when he served as Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator a decade ago, he consistently ate the lunch of those on the other side of the table.
Ali Alfoneh, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has taken the trouble to read what Rouhani has written over the years. He tells me that Rouhani has candidly stressed that “one of the goals of his nuclear diplomacy was to create a wedge” between the United States and its European allies so that Iran could import nuclear technology without incurring Western penalties. By contrast, the antagonistic approach of Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, raised Western hackles and brought painful sanctions.
In other words, Rouhani’s “moderation” has been stylistic, not substantive. The evidence indicates that to him, “constructive interaction” means persuading the enemy to let down his guard.
Which is essentially what the congressmen propose — right after telling the president that Rouhani has “publicly expressed the view that obtaining a nuclear weapon would run counter to Iran’s strategic interests.”
No, actually Rouhani has expressed the view that Iran’s strategic interests are best served not by “a” nuclear weapon but by developing an industrial-size nuclear capability to manufacture dozens of them. Achieving that requires spinning centrifuges and stocking up on enriched uranium until there is enough for “undetectable breakout” — the ability to make weapons-grade uranium (or sufficiently reprocessed plutonium) so quickly that neither United Nations inspectors nor foreign intelligence agencies are aware it’s happening.
If the letter is bad advice, what should the congressmen be telling Obama instead? To stay on track — as they should be, too. Of the 131 signers of the letter, 86 also are co-sponsors of legislation authored by Ed Royce and Eliot Engel, the top Republican and Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which would establish a de facto oil embargo against Iran.
In the coming months, American leaders will have to decide whether, on their watch, the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, a self-proclaimed revolutionary jihadist regime that calls America “Satan incarnate,” will be permitted to acquire the nuclear weapons it needs to dominate the Middle East and reshape the world order.
How wonderful it would be if, within Iran’s ruling elite, there were a moderate eager to avoid this confrontation and establish amicable relations. But that is not reality. If wishes were horses, 131 members of congress would be galloping down Pennsylvania Avenue this week. It’s their job to dismount, and plant their feet firmly on the ground.