Here is an example that shows the difference between being a
hair-splitter and a sharp analyst.
Imagine a designer of ocean going ships that lived in the
middle of the nineteenth century when aluminum and titanium were not known –
predicting that in the future there will be ships made of iron and copper. They
will fly through the air and take passengers from one continent to another
faster than the ocean going ships can ever do, he wrote.
To be a hair-splitter today is to say that the designer
didn't know what he was talking about because airplanes are not made of iron or
copper. To be a sharp analyst is to say that the man was a genius who possessed
great knowledge in science and technology. Combined with his powerful insight,
that knowledge allowed him to see possibilities for a future he did much to
shape. Yes, he did not foresee the advances that were eventually made in
metallurgy, but this is a minor detail when compared to what he predicted.
Well, you must have guessed by now this is meant to be an
analogy to illustrate a point, and you are correct. The point has to do with
the Bret Stephens column which came under the title: “Truth Catches the Iran
Deal” and the subtitle: “Obama trumpets an agreement that Tehran violates at
every turn,” published on July 12, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.
In his fanatic zeal to deny credit where credit is due,
Stephens took up the business of splitting hair at every turn in an attempt to
make it look like President Obama has failed everywhere. He asserts that Iran
has violated the nuclear deal, a claim that is false anyway you look at it. The
fact is that Iran will no longer enrich uranium to a level that exceeds 4
percent purity. Even then, it cannot stockpile more than 300 kilograms of it.
As well, Iran will not produce plutonium in any quantity. And given that its
entire supply chain is monitored, Iran will not be able to cheat – even if it
wanted to – under a system that the IAEA has said is working well. This is
success, not failure.
So then, what can Stephens do to counter facts on the ground
that are constantly verified, and make it look like what you see is not what
you get? Well, he could conjure up a magic trick known as sleight of hand, thus
create an optical illusion that deceives the onlooker. And so, instead of
comparing what Obama promised the Iran deal will deliver against what it
delivered, Stephens opted to discuss matters that sound like forbidden
activities under the Iran deal, but are in reality, legitimate nuclear
pursuits. What follows is a montage of what he says:
“Iran procurement activities hold true with regard to items
used in the field of nuclear technology. It also corroborates that Iran's
nuclear procurement has increased. Seven German states have reported similar
procurement efforts. This violates Iran's commitment to go through an official
'procurement channel' to purchase nuclear- and missile-related materials”.
In other words, Stephens admits that Iran did not purchase
any forbidden material. And so, he splits hair by complaining that Iran
violated – not a legal requirement – but a self-imposed commitment to go
through an official procurement channel before buying even the permitted
material. But what exactly does the official procurement channel consist of?
And how was Iran supposed to go through it? Bret Stephens does not say. And
yet, he expects us to take it on faith that Iran did something wrong.
Having played those tricks as much as he can, he now delves
into a potpourri of other tricks. One goes like this: “The administration
developed a narrative that Iran has met its obligations and deserves U.S.
purchases of its heavy water (thereby subsidizing its nuclear program).” This
is worse than a trick; it is a full blown deception. The fact is that there is
always demand for heavy water, and the Iranians could have sold theirs to
anyone. The reason why America bought it was to analyze it, thus determine how
much progress Iran has made in this field.
Stephens goes on to complain about the steps that the
administration is taking to honor the promise of normalizing relations with
Iran. He then recaps by listing the sleights of hand he played throughout the
article. This done, he asks: “Is Mr. Obama rationalizing a failed agreement or
did he mean to mislead the American public?”