Team Obama Will Focus on Israeli-Palestinian Peace to Help Solve Iranian Nuke Crisis
Obama’s National Security Advisor James L. Jones spoke on Wednesday April 21, 2010 at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. During his speech Jones admitted that Team Obama’s approach of diplomacy with Iran has been an utter failure. It took them over a year to realize they were dealing with a killer thug regime that is barreling ahead with a clandestine nuclear program and has no intention of allowing international interference in its nuclear rights.
The Iranian regime celebrated its National Nuke Day this year with a musical tribute.
The National Security Advisor told his audience that if the Obama Administration concentrated on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process then they would take this evocative issue away from Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas. Unfortunately, Hamas controls Gaza and will not recognize Israel which makes peace an impossibility. But, in team Obama’s world of butterflies and buttercups these thug regimes can be persuaded to give up their terrorist ways and make peace with Israel despite the fact that their charter calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel.
What Team Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that there will be no peace between the Palestinians and Jews until Iran is dealt with. Until the arms pipeline from Tehran to Syria, Gaza and southern Lebanan is dismantled there will be no peace for Israel.
Independent Media Review Analysis reported:
When President Obama took office, Iran had already assembled thousands of centrifuges and accumulated nearly a bomb’s worth of low enriched uranium. Iran was in active violation of five UN Security Council Resolutions. Moreover, Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist actors in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza signaled a continued determination to sow its brand of violence and coercion across the Middle East.
Clearly, a policy of not engaging Iran did not work. That is why President Obama made clear his commitment to engage Iran on the basis of mutual respect on the full range of issues that divide our countries. As the President repeatedly said, he was under no illusions. He knew it would not be easy to overcome decades of mistrust, suspicion, and even open hostility between our countries. But he also knew that engagement was necessary to present Iran with a choice and to unite the international community around the need for Iran meet its international obligations.
So to advance our interests, President Obama extended his hand and the opportunity for dialogue. American and Iranian diplomats met in Geneva in October, and through the International Atomic Energy Agency. With strong support from the United States, France, and Russia, the IAEA put forward a creative offer to produce nuclear fuel using Iran’s own low enriched uranium. It was an offer with humanitarian benefits, ensuring that Iran would meet its need for medical isotopes. It gave Iran the opportunity to show that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes. It would have built confidence on both sides in the possibility of further agreements. In addition, the United States went to great lengths to demonstrate our commitment and establish assurances for Iran.
To date, we have seen no indication that Iran’s leaders want to resolve these issues constructively. After initially accepting it, they rejected the Tehran Research Reactor proposal. They have refused to discuss their nuclear program with the P5+1. The revelation of a previously covert enrichment site, construction of which further violated Iran’s NPT obligations, fed further suspicion about Iran’s intentions. Iran recently increased the enrichment levels of its uranium to 20 percent. All the while, Iran continues to brutally repress its own citizens and prohibit their universal rights to express themselves freely and choose their own future.
These are not the behaviors of a responsible international actor, and they are not the actions of a government committed to peaceful diplomacy and a new relationship with a willing and ready partner.
Indeed, Iran’s continued defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program and its support of terrorism represents a significant regional and global threat. A nuclear-armed Iran could transform the landscape of the Middle East, precipitating a nuclear arms race, dramatically increasing the prospect and danger of local conflicts, fatally wounding the global non-proliferation regime, and emboldening the terrorists and extremists who threaten the United States and our allies.
Therefore, we are now working actively with allies and partners to increase the costs of Iran’s continued failure to live up to its international obligations. This includes a U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution.
As President Obama has stated, our offer of engagement with Iran stands, and we remain prepared to pursue a better and more positive future. Iran has rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. If Iran’s leaders do not fulfill those responsibilities, and if they continue to violate their international obligations, they will face ever deepening isolation.
Iran’s government must face real consequences for its continued defiance of the international community. We hope that Iran will make the right choice and acts to restore the confidence of the international community in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
However, should Iran’s leaders fail to make that choice, President Obama has been very clear, and I want to repeat it here: the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In so doing, we will avoid a nuclear arms race in the region and the proliferation of nuclear technology to terrorist organizations.
Of course, one of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas. It would allow our partners in the region to focus on building their states and institutions. And peace between Israel and Syria, if it is possible, could have a transformative effect on the region.