Just What Do They Mean by Moderate?

You listen to them for years on end as they call this one a moderate and that one an extremist; call this one a pragmatist and that one ideologue, but you never see them give a clear definition of the words they use. Suddenly, something seems to have changed – at least this one time. It is that John Bolton has published an article in FoxNews.com on June 18, 2013 under the title: “Hasan Rowhani is no moderate on Iran's nuclear weapons program” in which there appears to be an attempt to define the word moderate.

You must have guessed from the title of the piece that the author did not expressly set out to define that word – and you would have guessed correctly. But as you will see from the discussion that follows, it is in defining what is immoderate that he inadvertently defines what a moderate is in his eyes and the eyes of his comrades.

The first thing that Bolton does is make a crucial revelation: “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards make key military policy decisions, not Iran's president.” Thus, whether Bolton meant to say it or not, the outcome of what has transpired during ten years of negotiations between Iran and the “West” with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, was never the responsibility of Hasan Rowhani who headed the Iranian negotiating team for a while. And this is because the outcome of the negotiations was never his to decide. When all is said and done, what this means ultimately is that Rowhani can only be judged by the way that he conducted himself and conducted the negotiations.

So then, what does Bolton say Rowhani did? Well, he begins by attacking the man: “He was central to Iran's strategy of using protracted negotiations to buy time and legitimacy under diplomatic cover.” He then explains why he has attacked Rowhani's character: “He promised Iran would sign an 'Additional Protocol' to the existing Agreement, which it did.” In other words, Bolton puts together a logical construct that goes like this: (1) the man promises, (2) the man delivers on the promise on time, therefore (3) the man uses negotiations to buy time. Well, my friend, I don't know about you but it sounds very Jewish to me and very illogical.

This is one incident. What else is there? Here is what else Bolton is reporting: “He said Iran might consider 'suspending' enrichment activities, but only if the West guaranteed a fuel supply for Iran's nuclear reactors.” So then what happened after that? This is what happened: “the European foreign ministers later confirmed Iran's agreement to suspend uranium enrichment.”

So far so good, but then what happened? Well, what happened was that during the press conference announcing the deal, Rowhani cautioned: “We voluntarily chose to do it … As long as we think the suspension is beneficial for us, it will continue. When we don't want it, it will end.” Iran kept its word to suspend the enrichment but continued to produce centrifuges it did not actually spin. The Europeans did not supply the fuel they promised, the negotiations between the two sides broke down and Rowhani notified: “We told you if you don't fulfill your promise, everything will return to day one.” And that's what happened.

What all this proves is that Rowhani is a man of his word. He never promised what he knew he could not deliver, and he delivered on everything he promised. And when he made a conditional deal, he cautioned at the outset that if the Europeans did not keep their side of the bargain, they will all be back to square one, which is what happened. Unable to find fault in any of this, Bolton does something that should cause smoke to blow out the ear of Neocons. He quotes a 2006 article in the New York Times chiding Rowhani. As to the Times article, it reported on a speech that Rowhani gave a day earlier.

This is what the man had said then: “While talking with the Europeans, we were installing equipment in the facility in Isfahan but we still had a long way to go to complete the project. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work. We are now prepared to go to the UN Security Council.”

Well, every word in that statement says that Rowhani kept his word and respected the applicable laws. And so did everyone else involved in the Iranian nuclear program. They were all smart negotiators which, in the eyes of Bolton and apparently the New York Times also, makes them immoderate. Too bad they feel this way.

As for Bolton, he is still lamenting: “Rowhani deceived, mocked and disdained the West.” No, John, when you negotiate with leaders who defend the interests of their people, you negotiate with intelligent human beings, not the selfish trash you meet in the American Congress of clowns and circus animals.