By Roger L Simon
The President says we’re negotiating with whoever now represents the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the Iranians say we’re not, although they insist on talking to Rubio and Vance, not to Kushner and Witkoff. Go figure.
Whatever the case, the New York Times provides some details, claiming the U. S. sent Iran a 15-point plan to end the war that Trump says we have won, and that they, the mullahs and their cohorts, are eager to make a deal.
They certainly have suffered under an almost unparalleled attack by the U. S. and Israel, to which their response, though persistent, has not been particularly potent and seems to be dwindling.
So maybe they are, even if the talks are not direct or whatever other tedious propaganda we have to sit through
Most importantly, however, if we do make a deal, can Iran be trusted?
Not on their record. They cheated throughout the nuclear deal, the so-called JCPOA, originally urged on the world in 2013 by Barack Obama and signed in 2015 by multiple nations. The terms of that deal were shaky at best, with Iran largely in control of inspections from the start. Enforcement, from the UN and elsewhere, barely existed.
Are the people we are dealing with now all that different from those who signed that deal?
Without knowing exactly who they are, the chances are they are (titularly, supposedly) Shia Muslims. 90—95% of Iran is. Shia ideology embraces taqiyya, a concept that has been defined in different ways, but has been interpreted by many as justifying lying in defense of the faith or to advance it.
It’s likely that our new interlocutors, like the previous mullahs and Republican Guards, are Shia.
I used the parenthetical above because a great many of the actual Iranian, particularly Persian, citizens, reject Islam, or pretend to observe it only for their personal safety. We have seen this with freedom demonstrators throughout the years, many of whom embrace their original religion, Zoroastrianism, and verbally attack Islam. Despite the regime, the Zoroastrian holiday of Nowruz is widely celebrated. Others prefer Christianity. Some are secular.
It’s hard to imagine that these demonstrators, who, almost all unarmed, dared to protest the brutal mullahs and were shot, sometimes in their hospital beds, will not be at risk from a peace deal. They will be targets now and in the years to come by rulers for whom murder and torture were a way of life. Again, are the new ones different? How do we know? Because they tell us so?
These demonstrators are the very people we applauded and hoped would succeed. They were our heroes. How will they be protected? Are they included in the 15 points of the American proposal?
I would like to think so, but I am skeptical. I’m not sure it can even be done with a “peace deal”. I think it can only happen with regime change. This is not Venezuela. Iran is altogether different.
I hope I’m wrong, but the only road I can see to a decent resolution is for the Americans and the Israelis to finish the job, execute a real, verifiable change to democracy that can be seen and validated by the whole world. In other words, what occurred after the Second World War.
Otherwise, we are likely to be doing this all over again, this time with an Iran armed with ICBMs that can reach Chicago. Europe, as we have seen, is already within range.
Yes, the political and financial pressures on Trump are strong, with a floundering stock market and the midterms looming. Few politicians could withstand it all, but I like to think that Trump can. I worry about some of those around him.
We’re in a civilizational war.
Anyway, this is far from over. I could say “stay tuned,” but I’m pretty sure we all will anyway. Perhaps, in a few days, our Marines will be taking over Kharg Island.
Then we’ll tear everything up like Chico and Groucho in the great contract scene from “A Night at the Opera.”
First published in American Refugees
One Response
Short answer: NO.
Hudna. Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Taqiyya. Kitman. Muruna. Etc.
Mohammedans are masters of deceit; and Shiite Mohammedans are viewed by other mohammedans as the most practised deceivers of all (because of having to outsmart the more numerous and powerful Sunnis).
Can somebody please, please, pLEASE explain to the President and not only the President absolutely every other leader – political and religious – of the entire non-Islamic world, that **MOhammedans are taught, as a principle of their ideology, not to make agreements with infidels.. or to do so only in order to buy time to regroup and rearm, and to go back in for the kill the instant they think they can get away with it**.
ALL Infidel ‘agreements’ made with Mohammedans have turned out to be snares and delusions. And that includes, I am convinced, the ‘Abraham Accords’.
Mohammedans offer ‘deals’ / treaties/ truces when they are feeling weak and think they need some time to get stronger.
That means that when and if a Mohammedan entity starts suing for ‘peace’ at some point in a conflict with Infidels, the Infidels involved should (if able to do so) .. go in faster and hit HARDER… This goes entirely against the grain of what most decent/ semi-decent non-Muslim societies instinctively do. But it is, grimly, necessary.
The Yanks need to understand this. The Israelis should NOT be restrained. Forcing Israel to stop just as they were getting somewhere, was disastrous in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s 1980s. And it will be disastrous, now.