The real real reason for the Iran deal


Jubilant crowds in Iran celebrating the nuclear deal. They are chanting slogans, which, in addition to supporting the nuclear deal, also demand Rouhani to hold his promises in the social realm: “The next deal that should be signed, should be Iran citizen rights

The Daily Beast tells us The Real Reason Obama Did the Iran Deal

And Slate knows the ‘real reason’ why Israel, Saudi Arabia and ‘Neocons’ hate the Iran Deal.

The right and the left are taking their sides, but it is hard to find a ‘real’ reason to take Iran or Saudi Arabia’s side in any issue. Both are enemy states, both support terrorist militias, both are, basically, enemies of humanity.

The Saudi regime and the Iranian regime are both more afraid of their own people than they are of each other. Most of the regimes in the Middle East are run by kleptocrats who used Israel and the ‘Palestinian cause’ to keep a lid on their peoples’ justifiable outrage for decades. In 2011, when kleptocratic, authoritarian mismanagement became too much to bear, they lost control and got the ‘Arab Spring’.

The war that Iran and Saudi Arabia are ginning up between Shia and Sunni is their last chance to avoid meeting Gaddafi’s fate. America and Israel also want to maintain the status quo, but if they don’t address the issues that caused the Arab spring, if they can’t stop relying on horrifically incompetent and genuinely evil leaders to keep order in the region, the whole mess will fall apart no matter what we do. We can’t expect people in the Middle East to put up with being ruled by monsters just because we prefer the devil we know.

About marypmadigan

Writer/photographer (profession), foreign policy wonk (hobby).
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The real real reason for the Iran deal

  1. Liora Brosh says:

    Iranian mullah’s are getting nuclear threshold status in order to avoid Gaddafi’s fate. One of the worst foreign policy mistakes Obama made was to bring down Gaddafi after he gave up his nukes. All countries got the message to go nuclear or gets nukes loud and clear. Legitimizing Iranian nuclear goals, overturning decades of bipartisan efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, will make these dictatorships more extreme and oppressive. How do you think these oppressive regimes should have been changed? If that’s the goal, to change the regimes, I felt that both Bush and Obama administrations should have used their alliances to pressure Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc for gradual stable reform (in education for one, and building democratic institutions, maybe). Are you saying that this deal is a step in the right direction? Also, in terms of reforming the oppression, it’s a very complex question. How does one transport a political system that developed over centuries in the West to another culture with no such tradition? Bush’s approach in Iraq, and Obama’s in Libya didn’t work. The Egyptian revolution didn’t work because it brought Islamist dictators to power. So, what would work? It’s not clear from your posting what you think would be the way to do this. The Western notion of the nation state, which was exported to the Middle East, clearly has been rejected in all the artificial states, but not in Egypt which was a state of its own making.

  2. Liora Brosh says:

    The Slate article you link to has two basic problems. It says 1) That Israel and Saudi Arabia were seeking war. I don’t know what the Saudis wanted, but the Israelis definitely didn’t want war. They worked with the Americans for years to get sanctions in place and when the regime was finally facing bankruptcy, and felt weakened, threatened that it might lose power at home (which is something you would support), skilled smart negotiators could have gotten an arms control deal that actually pulled back on Iranian nuclear activity. (Or maybe this could have enabled political reform?) What Israel was advocating for was never war, but skillful negotiating and a deal with real inspections monitoring and cut backs on the nuclear facilites. I also want to add, that this meme by Slate and others that “Israel wants war” is pretty disturbing and highly reminiscent of the anti-Semitic nonsense that surrounded the Iraq war. It veers awfully close to the Ron Paul type and far left type nonsense about Israel having wanted the war in Iraq. (Not to mention Lindbergh) 2) The other problem with the Slate article is that it provides no evidence for why legitimizing the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons, and giving them billions of dollars, will lead to a weakening, rather than a strengthening of the oppressive regime. They mention that it will lead to open communication between Iranians and the West. Did that help in China? The article seems unconvincing.

  3. marypmadigan says:

    Obama didn’t bring Gaddafi down – the Libyans, with the help of the French, the UAE and the rest of the multi-state coalition brought him down. There was no way that anyone could prop him up

    Nearly everyone was caught off-guard by the Arab spring. At first, I think most democracies saw this as a welcome change from the previous ‘Arab Street’ uprisings, the manufactured outrage that prompted violent attacks against our embassies. But Qatar saw their opportunity to gain power against their hated cousins in Saudi Arabia and the uprisings turned into Muslim Brotherhood operations. Saudi and Iran responded by using al Qaeda and Hezbollah to ‘fight back’, and the Arab spring turned into a mob war, with ISIS, an amalgam of the Ba’thists and al Qaeda, as the winner.

    Everything we’ve done has been a confused stumble in the wrong direction. 9/11 was an act of war. What would we have done if Canada had attacked us without provocation, blew up landmarks in New York, Military installations in Washington? I can guarantee that we would not have covered up their involvement and secretly protected the terrorists’ family members. And we get most of our oil from Canada. Everything we’ve done since 9/11 has been weak, sad, and wrong.

    As far as what we should do now, we need to realize that when Saudi gets flushed down the drain, they’re going to do their best to drag us down with them. We need to back away from them, stop associating with them, stop calling them allies. Replacing Saudi with Iran is definitely a step in the wrong direction. We need to support the Kurds, the Druze, the dissidents, and the real reformers by giving them a solid network to communicate and coordinate attacks against ISIS (and the governments that support them). Our government could help by giving grants to the study of how to reform these frenemy states. And promoting the novel idea that this would be a good thing. And of course, our government won’t do that. But it is surprising how much private initiative has accomplished when people start hearing the truth. Back in 2002, I would be the only person on a comment thread talking smack about the Saudis. Now, everyone does.

  4. marypmadigan says:

    I don’t really agree with either ‘real reason’ article, I just used them as a way of showing how the left and the right are using this as a political football. If there’s one thing the Arabs/Persians learned from the British, it’s ‘divide and conquer’. Iran and Saudi are our enemies, but we don’t fight them, we fight each other.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s