On January 27, 2014, John Bolton wrote another one of those
articles in which he warns that Iran is a dangerous nation that's about to
obtain dangerous weapons. The thing is that this time, he begins with these
words: “For nearly three decades, Iran … has outmaneuvered Western
counter-proliferation efforts.” Well, John Bolton does not realize that when he
says three decades, and then tries to say that Iran poses an imminent danger, no
reader believes him and everyone laughs at him. You can't say imminent for
three decades and remain credible.
But that's not the only contradiction you encounter in the
article, as indeed you do in every article of this nature – whether written by
him or by someone like him. Here is another one: “sanctions were extremely
effective before Geneva” contradicted by: “The sanctions have not simply been
less effective in their economic impact and failure to slow, let alone cripple,
Iran's nuclear-weapons program. U.S, sanctions advocate made a far more basic
miscalculation...”
You want to see another contradiction? There is another one
except that it is not something he says in the same article but something he
has been hollering about for many years. Here is what he says now: “Tehran played on the West's
obsessive belief that uranium enriched to 20 percent was more threatening than
uranium enriched to 3 to 5 percent.” And that is in direct contradiction to
what was convenient to say previously, which is that uranium enriched to 20
percent took Iran
as close as 90 percent of the way to having a bomb.
What was convenient then is convenient no more, and so he
changes his assertion. But on whom does he blame his change of heart? Believe
it or not, he blames it on the victim. Even though the Iranians never said
anything about how close 3 percent or 5 percent or 20 percent enrichment gets
them to the bomb – which they always denied making – he wants us to believe
that they played on the West's obsession. And this reminds us of the time when
they did not find Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, so they blamed the
fiasco on Saddam Hussein whom they accused of letting them believe he had such
weapons ... when in reality he always denied he had them. These people never
change, do they?
You want to see something else that is just as ridiculous as
the above? Here it is: “'Lawfare' will also be an important element in Iran 's campaign
to dismantle sanctions.” So here you have a lawyer who complains about
“lawfare.” Instead of welcoming the adjudication of disputes between parties
through the courts, which is what lawyers who respect their profession do, you
have here a case in which recourse to the rule of law is slammed by an officer
of the court in a country that prides itself on the rule of law. What else
could he have said to flabbergast you more?
But what is it that he relies on to convince himself the
reader will believe what he says? He seems to rely on the assertions that he
makes to satisfy every occasion. Here is one; probably his most direct
assertion: “Tehran
will cheat.” Well, my friend, do you believe in the honesty of someone who
contracts himself time after time; someone who has nothing but contempt for his
own profession? Or do you suspect that his nemesis – the Iranian negotiators –
are a lot more deserving of your trust than the self-contradicting machine
which Bolton has proven himself to be?
But why is he doing all that? Here is why: “We hope that
Congress will take Obama's measure on Iran
because we are on a course toward failure with consequences for Israel .” That's
really what preoccupies him; nothing else. The darling he wants to protect is Israel , and the workhorse that will do the
protection is the American Congress; the very Congress that keeps rubbing America 's nose
in the mud.
But Bolton cannot stop here
or the American people will rise and protest that the Israelis will have to
choose between getting along with their neighbors and suffering the
consequences of their actions alone. This is because the Americans have had it
up to here, and they want to see a change in foreign policy.
For these reasons, Bolton finds it necessary to say that
these would be consequences “for Israel
even for America
itself.” So now the security of America
is in the balance. And if this were not enough to scare people, Bolton has
demagoguery up his sleeve: “If Geneva does not
measure up to Munich
1938, it will soon be a close second.”