RSS
Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Thrive in Russia; Is Putin on a Collision Course with Israel?
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un during a meeting at the Vostochny Сosmodrome in the far eastern Amur region, Russia, September 13, 2023. Sputnik/Vladimir Smirnov/Pool via REUTERS
During a speech in 2022 celebrating the annexation of four new Ukrainian territories (in addition to Crimea, which was annexed in 2014), Russian President Putin unexpectedly articulated a new ideology of Russian anti-colonialism, surprising many Western observers.
Putin synthesized a new “conservative” Kremlin ideology with a formally “leftist” Soviet ideology. What could this ideology practically mean for Israel?
Putin stated: “The West is willing to do anything to preserve the neocolonial system that allows it to parasitize, to actually plunder the world through the power of the dollar and technological diktat, to collect real tribute from humanity, to extract the main source of unearned prosperity, the hegemon’s rent.” Putin accused the West of preparing aggression against Russia through Ukraine, in order to maintain its global domination and colonial enslavement. Interestingly, Putin presented his own aggression and annexation of foreign territories as self-defense, ostensibly aimed at dismantling Western imperialism and liberating the Global South.
Naturally, for any unbiased observer, such a peculiar ideology of “anti-colonialism” contains an obvious contradiction: the liberation of nations from imperialism is clearly impossible through attempts to build an empire. However, the experts who underestimated the potential impact of Putin’s new ideology of “anti-colonialism” because of its inherent contradictions were mistaken.
Putin is trying to capitalize on the fact that the war in Ukraine has not been condemned in many non-Western countries. As Peter Rutland wrote: “The war unified the West — but has divided the West from the rest of the world. The majority of the countries in the Global South see the Ukraine war as a problem in that it has caused energy and food prices to rise, but they are not blaming Russia for starting the war, and have declined to join the Western sanctions. This recalls the Cold War — during which most of the developing world adopted a non-aligned stance, preferring to stay out of the contest between the superpowers.” The unexpected appeal of the Russian position for a number of Third World countries is also noted in a report by the Swedish Defence Research Agency.
To support this new doctrine, a powerful media network (including the popular RT TV channel and Sputnik system in many parts of the world, as well as a network of social media accounts) was deployed. In shaping this new doctrine, Russia managed to partially (although not without internal contradictions) overcome its dependence on the conservative and even explicitly racist discourse of Putin’s propaganda, which is widespread in Russia itself.
Putin’s “anti-colonialism” ideology continues to evolve. It looks more like a state-sponsored process than a full-fledged Soviet-type ideology (e.g., as it appeared under Mikhail Suslov, who oversaw Soviet ideology from Stalin to the end of the Brezhnev era). Based on pragmatic considerations, the Russian elite has decided to emphasize the image of Russia as a global “leader of oppressed countries,” just as the USSR did.
According to a leak, the new propaganda aimts to focus on some of the less wealthy European countries (including Southern Europe, parts of Eastern and Southeastern Europe), post-Soviet countries, South America, and Asia. However, this propaganda is not limited to these parts of the world.
For Israel, the political implications of promoting such an ideology are quite clear.
The Russian leadership appeals to Soviet anti-Zionist (and implicitly antisemitic) ideology, which in itself would have negative consequences for relations with Israel, even if this process remained purely ideological and did not manifest itself in practical life.
In practice, however, Russia is trying to use the new anti-colonial and anti-Israel ideology to build relations with non-Western countries, countering Western attempts to create a global alliance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine
In this context, it is particularly dangerous for Israel that Russia actively employs anti-colonial (and anti-Zionist) ideology in its diplomatic engagement with Iran.
The surge of leftist anti-Israel sentiment in Western intellectual circles demonstrates that the Kremlin’s appeal to Soviet anti-colonial propaganda is helping to destabilize the modern West to some extent.
Anti-Zionist propaganda in Russia itself (and among far-right groups in the West) appeals to far-right groups whose significance to the Kremlin has increased due to ideological confrontation with the liberal world order.
Let’s examine the points highlighted above.
Appeal to Soviet Anti-Zionist Ideology in the Global South. Putin’s Russia seeks to capitalize on the ideological legacy of the Soviet Union in non-Western countries. The Soviet Union was renowned for its uncompromising anti-colonial struggle against Western colonial empires (although its own policies, for example, in Central Asia or the Caucasus, can be characterized as colonial, and such practices continue to this day).At least since the time of Khrushchev, if not the late Stalin, Soviet anti-colonial struggle has included significant elements of anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Soviet policy in the Arab Middle East during certain periods was largely confined to supporting Israel’s opponents, including the governments of Egypt under Gamal Nasser, Syria under Hafez al-Assad, and various Palestinian terrorist groups.The Soviet struggle against Israel and Zionism, however, was much broader. It included active anti-Zionist propaganda spread in Third World countries, drawing direct parallels between Zionism and imperialism (and even Nazism as the most extreme form of imperialism). The regions of most uncompromising Soviet anti-colonial struggle included the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and others. In virtually all of these regions, the Soviet Union actively used anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda.
Establishing Relations with Non-Western Countries through a New Anti-Colonial and Anti-Israeli Ideology. The Kremlin is using a new anti-colonial and anti-Israeli ideology to build relations with non-Western countries, countering Western attempts to create a global alliance against Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Currently, in the context of the war in Gaza, old leftist forces historically linked to the Soviet Union and actively opposing Israel’s policies have re-emerged in these regions.In Latin America, most of the countries most actively opposed to Israel (primarily Bolivia, but also Chile, Colombia, Honduras, and Belize) have leftist governments that to varying degrees associate themselves with Soviet anti-colonial ideology. However, it should be noted that other factors also influence foreign policy decisions. Some leftist governments in the region have been relatively cautious in their statements. Such additional factors include national interests, diplomatic traditions (e.g., Belize tends to take a position opposite to Guatemala, which has expressed pro-Israel sentiments), or the presence of large Arab diasporas (e.g., Chile, which has a half-million Arab minority).The African National Congress in South Africa, which has a strong anti-Israeli stance, has also historically been linked (through its militant left wing) to the USSR. The Syrian regime in the Middle East, which opposes Israel, is directly linked to Soviet times: the Assad dynasty had ties to the USSR. This list could go on for a long time.
Numerous statements by Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and Maria Zakharova (spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) contain elements of anti-Israel discourse and antisemitic global conspiracy theory.
For instance, Putin repeatedly stated that Volodymyr Zelensky, who he said was “installed by Western curators,” was covering for “Ukrainian Nazis” with whom Russia is at war. Lavrov added to this by suggesting that “Hitler was allegedly of Jewish descent.” Zakharova published an article justifying a position that some experts (especially in Ukraine and Israel) consider to be a soft version of the Holocaust denial prevalent in the USSR.
In this regard, there is currently an active discussion (in Russia, Ukraine, and Israel) about whether a Soviet style policy of state antisemitism is being revived in Russia. At that time, propaganda equating Zionism with Western imperialism and even German Nazism was widespread]. This idea was utilized both domestically and in specific Soviet propaganda aimed at Arab countries in the Middle East.
Russia also actively supports anti-Israel forces in the Gaza war, including various Palestinian groups, Iran and Hezbollah.
New Anti-Colonial Ideology in Diplomatic Interactions with Iran. Russia is actively using its new anti-colonial ideology in diplomatic engagement with Iran. Iran’s “axis of resistance” ideology, although adapted to a Shiite framework, is very reminiscent of Soviet anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist propaganda and often incorporates elements of the Soviet system (e.g., Assad’s Syria). I analyzed publications on the website of the Russian embassy in Iran and the Iran-related section of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website. A significant part of the publications from 2022-2024 contains elements of anti-colonial rhetoric. This rhetoric has become a mandatory component of diplomatic documents signed in recent years by Russian and Iranian representatives.
Of course, it cannot be said that anti-colonial ideology and even anti-Israel stance were the main reasons for the rapprochement between Russia and Iran. It was more a coincidence of situational factors. From Moscow’s perspective, the key reason for rapprochement was that Iran, against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s international isolation, became an important source of technology (primarily in the production of drones), a political ally in the fight against the West, and an example of long-term economic survival under Western sanctions. Finally, the Iran-Israel conflict was very convenient for Russia to distract the US leadership from the Ukraine problem. Nevertheless, the new anti-colonial rhetoric ideologically reinforces the Russia-Iran rapprochement.
The Explosion of Leftist Anti-Israeli Sentiment in Western Intellectual Circles, Especially in Universities, in the US, and Moscow’s Influence. Putin’s Russia is largely not directly connected to the ultra-leftist circles in the US. Instead, Moscow interacts with right-wing circles in the US that support Trump. The ties of some left-wing parties, such as Germany’s Die Linke, to Russia are more characteristic of Europe.
Nonetheless, Russia has contributed to anti-imperialist and anti-Israeli propaganda in the .S. Notably, Moscow’s ideology is most actively promoted in English-speaking countries through the RT network. RT head Margarita Simonyan largely anticipated Putin’s turn to anti-colonial rhetoric and has sought to recruit journalists with leftist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonial views in several countries, including the United States.
In addition, RT is connected to a large group of social media accounts actively spreading anti-Israeli propaganda in the context of the war in Gaza. Thus, the Kremlin is also contributing to the West’s division along this line.
Anti-Zionist propaganda in Russia itself, as well as among far-right groups in the West, appeals to ultra-right antisemitic groups. One of the paradoxes of the new doctrine is that it utilizes propaganda aimed at both far-right and far-left circles. The involvement of prominent right-wing ideologue Alexander Dugin in the formation of the new “anti-colonial” discourse indicates a certain continuity in shaping the right-wing propaganda (directed primarily at wealthy European countries and the US) with the new formally left-wing “anti-colonial” propaganda (directed mainly at the Global South).Dugin, in his various works (for example, on the well-known ideologue of the Third Reich, Carl Schmitt), has demonstrated how elements of Nazi ideology can be introduced into a formally leftist discourse (for example, referring to Carl Schmitt’s theory of the partisan, which in the perception of a number of Russian far-right circles acquires distinct imperial and even antisemitic connotations).
Among other far-right figures involved in the anti-colonial discourse, Konstantin Malofeev, a well-known oligarch, stands out. He played a significant role in the annexation of Crimea and in the outbreak of the war in Donbass, and was a source of funding for Igor Strelkov, the former “defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic.” Malofeev’s propagandist TV channel Tsargrad was initially modeled on American ultra-conservative propaganda. Now Malofeev finances the Tsargrad Institute, intellectually controlled by Dugin. Thus, there is an attempt to appropriate the anti-colonial discourse by Russian far-right circles. There is also a clear misuse of elements of anti-colonial discourse for Russian propaganda in developed Western countries, especially in Europe.
Dugin and Malofeev are known for their numerous antisemitic and anti-Israeli statements, which they now disguise as anti-colonial ideology. This approach is well-received by far-right antisemitic circles in Europe. Unlike the United States, Europe has very influential far-right groups with anti-Israeli and antisemitic positions. Russia’s traditional ties with some far-right parties in Europe fit well with this abusive strand of anti-colonial discourse, transforming it from left-wing to right-wing. Despite the internal contradictions in Dugin’s theses related to right-wing misuse of left-wing theories, they are fully in line with the Kremlin’s propaganda directives in Europe, where the emphasis of “anti-colonialism” should be on supporting traditional, “normal” values.
In addition, “duginism” becomes a means of reinterpreting the anti-colonial foreign policy discourse for the needs of domestic propaganda in Russia. As part of the transition to the “anti-colonial” discourse, a total mobilization of intellectual forces is planned, which involves purging the country of liberals who have not yet left. This ideology also includes a significant share of anti-Semitism. The ideologues of this process also include Dugin and Malofeev, who have proclaimed ideas of “decolonization” of Russian science.
An analysis of the anti-Israeli elements in Putin’s new ideology of “anti-colonialism” shows that as this ideology takes hold, Russia may find itself in a situation of systematic ideologically motivated confrontation with Israel, similar to what took place during the Soviet era. This ideology is currently evolving under the influence of various situational factors related to an attempt to overcome the international isolation of Putin following the invasion of Ukraine. However, this does not mean that it will quickly disappear. After all, anti-Israeli ideology in the USSR also developed under the influence of various situational factors, but lasted for decades during the Cold War.
The author is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the PSCR Program, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, PhD (Israel). A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism Thrive in Russia; Is Putin on a Collision Course with Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
When Did the Current Wave of Antisemitism Begin?
Jewish-American Wall Street journalist Daniel Pearl. Photo: Screenshot
JNS.org – In nearly 30 years of writing and speaking about global antisemitism, I’ve been asked more than once if it’s possible to pinpoint when this present wave of hatred first reared its head. It’s a question that takes on added significance in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas pogrom in Israel—the event that continues to drive the topic of antisemitism to the top of the headlines around the world.
Of course, antisemitism never faded away entirely, as most Jews know all too well. The decades that followed the Allied victory over Nazi Germany, whose 80th anniversary we marked last week, ushered in an unprecedented age of empowerment for the Jewish people. In most of the Diaspora (the Soviet Union and the Arab states being glaring exceptions), the civil and political rights of Jewish communities were enshrined, bolstered by the widely shared taboo on antisemitic rhetoric and activity that coalesced alongside revelations of the horror of the Nazi concentration camps. More importantly, for the first time in two millennia, the Jews finally achieved their own state, with armed forces that proved eminently capable of defeating the threats to Israel’s existence from around the region.
We had been, in the parlance of the early theorists of Zionism, “normalized”—or at least we thought as much.
The age of empowerment was not a golden age. Jews still languishing in the Soviet Union were persecuted and forbidden to make aliyah. The flourishing of multiple armed Palestinian organizations after the 1967 war subjected Israelis and Diaspora Jews to terrorist outrages, among them airplane hijackings and gun attacks on synagogues. The United Nations, whose General Assembly passed a 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, became the main incubator of the loathing directed at Israel. The brief postwar honeymoon between the Jews and the political left ended around the same time, replaced with the defamatory barbs about “apartheid” and “Zionist racism” that still plague us today.
Even so, at the turn of this century, there was a notable deterioration. For much of the 1990s, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians had seemed close to resolution, symbolized by the brief handshake on the White House lawn between the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader Yasser Arafat. But in 2000, five years after Rabin was assassinated in Tel Aviv, Arafat launched a second intifada against Israel, and the old hardline positions were reinstated. Much of the world followed Arafat’s cue, as demonstrated at the U.N.’s 2001 conference against racism in Durban, South Africa, held a few days before the Al-Qaeda atrocities in the United States on Sept. 11. There, NGOs and governments alike berated Israel, and Jewish delegates were subjected to the kind of abuse (“Hitler was right”) that has become all too common in the present day.
In tandem with the collapse in relations between Israel and the Palestinians, antisemitism returned with a vengeance, particularly in Europe, spurred by an unholy alliance of Islamist organizations rooted in the continent’s various Muslim communities, and a far left baying for Israeli and American blood after 9/11. It was in Pakistan, however, that the murder that came to symbolize this new reality occurred.
At the end of January 2002, Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, an American Jew, was abducted from a hotel in Karachi by Islamist terrorists. A few days later, video surfaced online (at that time, the technology was still novel) of Pearl’s savage execution. After uttering his final words—“My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish”—Pearl was beheaded on camera by his captors.
To my mind, his sickening fate signaled the beginning of the revived trend that Jews are still confronting. I say that because this wasn’t a case of ugly rhetoric or graffiti, a smashed window or even an unsuspecting Jewish passerby getting punched in the face. This was a cold-blooded, ideologically driven murder that exposed the lethal violence that lurks inside every committed Jew-hater.
Last week, one of the terrorists involved in Pearl’s kidnapping and murder was reportedly eliminated during the Indian airstrikes on Pakistan undertaken in response to the killing of 26 civilians by Pakistani-backed terrorists in Kashmir on April 26. Abdul Rauf Azhar was a leader of the Jaish e-Mohammad terror organization who collaborated in Pearl’s abduction with fellow terrorists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks; and Omar Saeed Sheikh, a Pakistani national who grew up in England and briefly studied at my alma mater, the London School of Economics, before dropping out. Along with the murder of Pearl, Azhar was responsible for the 1999 hijacking of an Indian passenger plane, as well as attacks on the Indian parliament and an Indian army base in 2001 and 2016, respectively.
The significance of Azhar’s elimination now, when antisemitism is raging with far greater intensity than at the time of Pearl’s killing, should not be lost on anyone. During the 23 years that separate the deaths of Pearl and Azhar, Jews have endured insults and vandalism, assault and even murder. Much of this has tracked the troughs and peaks of conflict in the Middle East, especially the Second Lebanon War in 2006, and earlier wars in Gaza in 2008-09, 2014 and 2021.
Not all of the antisemitic outpouring is so closely connected. Some of the worst instances of hatred and violence, like the 2017 torture and murder of Sarah Halimi, an elderly Jewish woman living on her own in public housing in Paris, did not occur at a time of unusually high conflict in the Middle East. Rather, they were a consequence of the demonizing tropes and false claims about Jews that have become embedded in our culture over the course of this century.
We should feel a strong degree of satisfaction at the news that Azhar is dead and therefore unable to ruin the lives of other innocents like Daniel Pearl. However, that’s not the same as full justice, which would involve a comprehensive reckoning by politicians, influencers and thought leaders with the antisemitism that has stained our culture and our civilization. We know, more or less, where all this started. What we don’t know is where it will end.
The post When Did the Current Wave of Antisemitism Begin? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
How One University Dealt with Pro-Hamas Protesters
Anti-Zionist protesters at Rutgers University, New Brunswick on December 23, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza via Reuters Connect
JNS.org – In the four academic semesters since Oct. 7, 2023, anti-Israel protests organized by Hamas sympathizers have overtaken some US colleges and tarnished the reputation of American academia. Ivy League schools have been particularly soiled by a combination of ignorant students, radical professors and weak administrations that coddle them.
On the contrary, the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, where I teach, dealt with pro-Hamas, antisemitic protests differently. While many schools are destroying their brands, RIT fought back.
The RIT brand has always centered on innovative and creative uses of technology. The university prides itself on its career-driven, motivated students of engineering, imaging, and computer science, and more recently, game design, film and animation. It has US Army and Air Force ROTC programs, and various defense and military research, including funding from the Space Force.
Just as important as what RIT has is what it doesn’t; there is no Middle East Studies department and no Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter. The absence of the former protects us from the most educated Israel haters, while the absence of the latter protects us from the least educated Israel haters.
However, nearby are the University of Rochester and Syracuse University, which have both, so we are not immune to Israel haters.
Anti-Israel, pro-Hamas demonstrations seemed ubiquitous on college campuses almost immediately after Oct. 7, though RIT was spared such ugliness for a month. On the lookout for demonstrations, I was proud of students for not aping the antics of those at other colleges in the state. Nor were there any fliers around campus commenting on the war in the Gaza Strip or announcing upcoming protests.
On Oct. 13, I saw about a dozen masked people—some sporting keffiyehs—loitering on one of the green spaces, but there were no chants or signs. If this was a protest, then these were amateurs.
A month later, on Nov. 13, the pro-Hamas infection came to RIT. The Muslim Students Association (MSA) held a demonstration during which protesters, many of them masked, openly cheered for the elimination of Israel, defended the Hamas murder-rape-decapitation massacre and called for an intifada “from New York to Palestine.” This was not the school I knew. The event was dominated by outsiders. Speakers were from the University of Rochester’s SJP chapter; the Party for Socialism and Liberation; and local, non-academic, anti-Israel organizations. The ringleader was Basem Ashkar, a local protester active in anti-Israel demonstrations since at least 2021.
Evidence of professional agit-prop organizations was visible in the protestors’ signs. Black lettering on a yellow background provided by the ANSWER Coalition proclaimed that “Resistance is justified when people are occupied.” Black lettering against a white background provided by the Party for Socialism and Liberation proclaimed that “Resistance against occupation is a human right!”
The crowd did not look like a typical gathering of the RIT students I have seen in the last 26 years. I wondered how many of those in attendance were paid professionals. One person who stood a head taller and looked decades older than most college students held a hand-written sign in Arabic that translated to “We will sacrifice ourselves for you, holy Aksa mosque. Freedom and independence for Jerusalem and Palestine.”
Shouts of Allahu Akbar (Arabic for “God is great”), the jihad battle cry, rang through the crisp November air, and sounds of ululating women reminded me of the infamous video of Palestinians in Jerusalem celebrating news of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States as their loathsome leaders handed out candy to children.
At one point, protesters were led in an Arabic chant that former PLO leader Yasser Arafat used to promote suicide bombings during the Second Intifada in Israel. The translation? “With our souls and blood, we will sacrifice for Al-Aqsa. With our souls and blood, we will sacrifice for Palestine. With our souls and blood, we will sacrifice for Gaza.”
I wondered how many students, gleefully repeating what someone had instructed them to chant, knew what they were saying.
I believed that the hostile and antisemitic protest constituted a violation of RIT policy, so I initiated a complaint. I had meetings with the provost, and eventually, the president about the event.
RIT’s lawyers determined that the “river to the sea” chant was protected speech open to interpretation. And since the MSA had permission for its protest, it was determined that no policy had been violated.
What happened next was remarkable among most college campuses, as far as I can tell. Instead of inaugurating a new era of campus unrest, that November protest was the last one of the year. As the spring 2024 semester turned into the semester of tent encampments throughout North America, there were no more protests at RIT.
In January 2024, rumors spread that the administration had rejected all subsequent petitions for protests. I wasn’t able to confirm those rumors. RIT’s provost, Prabu David, told me that a single attempt to set up an “encampment” was quickly dismantled, and the people pitching tents were immediately removed from campus.
David Munson, the university’s president, is retiring this week. I met with him in November to discuss the RIT protest and how to prevent more in the future. He told me that he believes “RIT has done a good job of navigating the area between free speech and harassment. It has been easier because of the kindness of our student body and the availability of local law enforcement.”
He discussed policy changes, such as setting a limit of six hours for any approved protest, so that RIT would not become an encampment campus. We discussed the troubles that RIT’s previous provost, Ellen Granberg, now president of George Washington University, faced during the academic year when she called the Metropolitan Police in Washington, D.C., to clear an encampment on April 26, 2024, and they refused to come. Munson told me that he knew the sheriffs in Monroe County, N.Y., would respond if he called.
The fall 2024 semester was quiet, and so, too, was this current spring semester—or it was until we returned from spring break in late March.
It started with a single person on March 21, “protesting” in a central location with a Palestinian flag and signs decrying the “genocide in Gaza,” urging RIT to “divest from death” and calling to “Free Khalil.” I called campus security, and the responding officers stopped it quickly and professionally.
On March 26, the same student, along with several others, was in the same spot with the same flag and signs. Again, I called campus security, and, again, they shut it down quickly.
On April 4, there were more protesters. One addressed me by name. When I asked why he was dressed like a jihadi on Halloween, he responded that he was protecting himself from doxxing. I called security, and for a third time, they shut it down. I have seen no evidence of any protests on campus since then.
The university’s president and provost have won the battle, but the war continues. As RIT prepares for a new administration and new president, it will have to watch for the disruptive and potentially illegal SJP front.
To complicate matters, there is now an “unofficial” chapter of SJP at RIT, using the school’s name and violating its brand. The group’s website proclaims that its goal is to “agitate, demonstrate and otherwise make our voices heard on the RIT campus.”
RIT’s struggle with pro-Hamas demonstrations shows that even when a university does what is right and necessary, it must maintain vigilance against the Jew-hatred of today’s anti-Israel demonstrators.
Like preventing dandelions from taking over a pristine lawn, keeping such protests at bay requires continual deterrence. There is no one-time, magical panacea.
The post How One University Dealt with Pro-Hamas Protesters first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
The Iran Nuclear Deal Trump Wants
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
JNS.org – A fourth round of talks between Tehran’s envoys and Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump’s lead negotiator, did not take place in Rome over the weekend as had been expected.
Neither Tehran’s spokesmen nor the US State Department gave a clear explanation for why, but I’ll venture a guess: Iran’s rulers want concessions in exchange for continuing to talk.
They think Trump needs negotiations more than they do. Their assessment is based on years of palaver with presidents Obama and Biden.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei hopes that, concession by concession, he can convince Trump to embrace a warmed-over version of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, the fatally flawed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Trump called “a horrible one-sided deal that should never, ever have been made.”
Sunday on “Meet the Press,” President Trump reiterated what he wants: “Total dismantlement [of Tehran’s nuclear weapons program]. That’s all I would accept.”
That means no uranium enrichment or reprocessing, and a halt to the regime’s development of missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads to American cities.
Witkoff is not a career diplomat. That may prove advantageous. Too often, career diplomats are overly eager to conclude deals because doing so brings them professional plaudits.
If those deals turn out to be bummers, so what? By then, the diplomats will have been promoted or awarded a professorship at an elite university where they can hold forth on The Art of Diplomacy.
That’s how North Korea became nuclear-armed after decades of negotiations and agreements.
That’s how Syria retained a stock of chemical weapons after the Obama administration claimed a Russian-mediated dialogue had brought about the destruction of the Assad regime’s CW arsenal.
The 2015 JCPOA is an especially egregious example. As Sen. Tom Cotton observed: “The deal didn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paved the path.”
Obama argued that no one could have achieved a better deal than he had—an unfalsifiable argument. He also said that the only alternative to his deal was war—another unfalsifiable argument.
A policy of “peace through strength”—which was not Obama’s policy but is Trump’s—implies that your adversaries are more fearful of you than you are of them because they recognize your superior might and don’t doubt your willingness to act if push comes to shove.
To be fair, 10 years ago, Tehran had what was believed to be a first-rate missile-defense system supplied by Russia, and commanded powerful terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East and beyond.
You know what happened next: In 2017, Trump became president. The next year, he withdrew the United States from the JCPOA and began to impose serious strains on Iran’s economy.
On Jan. 3, 2020, Trump terminated with extreme prejudice Qassem Soleimani, the skillful commander of Iran’s elite Quds Force, responsible for killing hundreds of Americans and determined to kill hundreds more.
No war resulted and, by the end of that year, Tehran had just $4 billion in accessible foreign exchange reserves, limiting the support it could provide to Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, its Shi’ite militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
These effective policies came to a halt when Trump moved out of the White House and Biden moved in.
Hoping to seduce Iran’s rulers back into some version of the JCPOA, Biden gave them sanctions relief, pouring tens of billions of dollars into their coffers. He lifted the terrorist designation from the Houthi rebels.
Iran’s rulers smelled weakness, which did not mitigate their hostility toward “the Great Satan,” their determination to exterminate “the Little Satan” or their grand ambition to become the most powerful Islamic empire since the fall of the Ottomans.
Deploying thousands of advanced centrifuges, they expanded their nuclear weapons program, producing highly enriched uranium, and began the computer modeling necessary to make a nuclear warhead.
They sold oil to Beijing and drones to Russia for use in its war of aggression against Ukraine. Scores of attacks by Iran’s terrorist proxies in Iraq and Syria against American troops went unanswered by the Biden administration.
On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas, bolstered by Iranian funds, weapons and training, invaded Israel and staged the worst massacre of Jews—and anyone who happened to be Jew-adjacent—since the Holocaust.
Since then, Israel has fought on multiple fronts. Hezbollah has been decimated. Tehran’s proxy in Syria has been overthrown.
Following two missile and drone attacks on Israel directly from Iranian soil in 2024, the Israeli Air Force destroyed most of Iran’s missile defense systems and severely degraded the regime’s ballistic missile production capability.
Iran’s rulers are now weaker and more vulnerable than they’ve been since the end of its war with Iraq in the 1980s.
President Trump has stated clearly: “We will not allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America!’ access to the most deadly weapons on earth.”
Others who support “dismantlement” include presidential advisers Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, Mike Waltz and the Senate Republican Conference, along with evangelical leaders.
So, too, does Witkoff. He has Trump’s ear and trust. If his Iranian interlocutors remain intransigent, there’s no reason for him not to report that to the president. No deal is better than a bad deal.
George Shultz, one of the most skillful American diplomats of the 20th century, left us this insight: “Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.”
Shultz had the experience and wisdom to recognize how the real world works. He understood that “peace through strength” is not just a catchy phrase. It’s a policy that must be implemented with confidence, courage and determination.
The post The Iran Nuclear Deal Trump Wants first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login