Who would be enough of a fool to think that anyone with real power in Iran thought otherwise? Oh. Right.
As always, beware of media characterizations that pretend this or that Iranian official is "moderate" or "more moderate" or whatever. They're grading on a pretty radical curve when they tell you that, but it's irrelevant at any rate. Only the mullahas have real power in Iran, and lest you have any doubt how the mullah's see Iran's postition, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would like to be sure he leaves no ambiguity:
Iran's top leader on Wednesday said missiles were key to the Islamic Republic's future, offering support to the hardline Revolutionary Guards that have drawn criticism from the West for testing ballistic missiles.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supported last year's nuclear deal with world powers but has since called for Iran to avoid further rapprochement with the United States and its allies, and maintain its economic and military strength.
"Those who say the future is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors," Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, was quoted as saying by his website.
"If the Islamic Republic seeks negotiations but has no defensive power, it would have to back down against threats from any weak country."
His comments may have been directed at former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the de facto leader of a more moderate political alliance, who last week tweeted "the future is in dialogue, not missiles".
It's funny how Khamenei understands the need to keep your powder dry better than Obama and Kerry do. Even if you're 100 percent committed to diplomacy as an alternative to force, you can't get anywhere in diplomacy if you a) give up your firepower, or b) make it clear that you won't use it under any circumstances. Obama and Kerry are all in with B, and they'd do A in a second if they could pull it off.
It's often been said that one of Obama's greatest weaknesses in foreign policy is that he presumes everyone else in the world views things the same way he does. So why wouldn't Iran give up their nukes? He would! But the mad mullahs are bent on regional (at least) domination and the destruction of Israel. You're not going to see them any time soon traveling around to other countries apologizing for their past and present atrocities against human rights.
So when Iran signs a deal with the U.S. promising not to pursue nukes, only a completely naive fool would think they're actually going to live up to it. They signed the deal to get economic sanctions lifted because they need their assets unfrozen. And they negotated into the deal an enforcement process that makes it virtually impossible to verify their compliance. Why? Because they're not going to comply. Never were.
Obama's defenders would sometimes acknowlege the flaws in the deal, to a point, but then they would immediately turn the question around on the deal's critics and say, hey, it's better than war! And this is why Obama ends up negotiating such bad deals. Our adversaries know that Obama will not use force against them no matter what, so they hold out for terms so lopsided in their favor it makes the deal a complete joke. And Obama and Kerry go along anyway, because neither can bear the thought of walking away without a deal, and neither is willing to use any muscular means to prevent bad actors from acting bad.
It's a great time to be a despotic tyrant who threatens your neighbors. And as Khamenei knows, to be quite open about it. Who's going to do anything?
Who would be enough of a fool to think that anyone with real power in Iran thought otherwise? Oh. Right.
As always, beware of media characterizations that pretend this or that Iranian official is "moderate" or "more moderate" or whatever. They're grading on a pretty radical curve when they tell you that, but it's irrelevant at any rate. Only the mullahas have real power in Iran, and lest you have any doubt how the mullah's see Iran's postition, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would like to be sure he leaves no ambiguity:
