John Bolton is after “Ditching the Iran nuclear
deal,” which is the title of his newest article, published on August 13, 2016
in the Pittsburgh Tribune. The trouble is that the deal is too big and too
important to be ditched. You might say there isn't a ditch big enough to take
it in and hide it.
Like everyone of his ilk, Bolton
has criticized the deal while it was being negotiated and after it was signed,
sealed and delivered. All the points that could be made for and against it were
made, but the deal survived because it proved to be necessary for the welfare
of the planet and the survival of the human race. That's a levelheaded humanity
that was well represented at the negotiating table.
So then, what can a Johnny-come-lately that has come before
and put down a whole bunch of eggs and duds, say this time that will be new and
a welcome addition to the debate? Nothing really, but John Bolton convinced
himself he has the goods, and he can deliver. To this end, he uses the transfer
of money to Iran
as a springboard to launch a new attack on the nuclear deal. Knowing that the
transfer has been haggled over to death already, he derogates past objections
to it so as to make his new objection to the nuclear deal sound formidable by
comparison. Look how he does that:
“Obama's transfer to Iran
of $400 million highlights the errors infecting his policy regarding Tehran … Humiliating
though it was, the real lessons of the payment are even broader. Obama's view
of the world – and America 's
place in it – is fundamentally flawed, as is that of Hillary Clinton. To avoid
further harm to the United States ,
we should start by abrogating the Vienna
nuclear agreement”.
Did you notice something odd in that passage? Bolton stealthily injected the name Hillary Clinton into
the discussion. In fact, as you go through the rest of the article, you realize
that his conception of it is to carry on with a local political discourse where
the electorate, in this election year, is polarized and sharply divided.
Meanwhile he pretends to conduct a foreign policy discourse where the
electorate can be swayed by someone reputed to be a foreign policy wonk. This
is like selling a Cadillac equipped with the motor of a Chevrolet.
It turns out, however, that Bolton could not carry on with a
foreign policy discussion without rehashing the negative talking points that
were made previously with regard to the nation of Iran ; to the nuclear deal that was
concluded with it, and the transfer of money that was made to it. He does all
that and does something else too. He weaves into his narrative the domestic
subplot pertaining to Hillary Clinton.
He fires the shot that signals the start of the subplot with
this: “Trump has criticized Obama's deal with Iran , while Hillary Clinton has
strongly supported it, appropriately enough since its basic foundations were
laid when she was at state … the ayatollahs, aware that the deal is beneficial
to them, are worried. Khamenei has complained that 'candidates in the American
election are threatening to tear up the nuclear deal. If they do we will burn
it.'”
Wait a minute. Does that look like a worried complaint by
Khamenei? It is obvious that John Bolton is deficient in his understanding of
the culture he discusses. What Khamenei did, in effect, is the equivalent of
the Western “doubling down.” Actually, it is more than that because when you go
from tearing up the deal to burning it, you escalate. Bolton
would have understood this much if he knew of the Middle Eastern saying that
goes: If you sprinkle us with water, we'll sprinkle you with blood. Going from
tear-up to burn is like going from water to blood.
No, the Iranians are not scared; what they did is call
Trump's bluff – which to them represents America 's bluff. Talking about America being humiliated for returning the money
it owes Iran rather than do
what common thieves do and keep it, the question is this: What does Bolton
think of a bluff that will leave America with the choice of
surrendering or starting a war it cannot win? In the long run, this bluff will
backfire on America .
Here again is a John Bolton who has no understanding of the
culture he's talking about, denigrating a Clinton
observation with these words: “Does she think the Guards Corps sit around contemplating
this question?” He goes on to posit that “Rouhani would never have been elected
had not Khamenei considered him a trustworthy subordinate.” This done, he finally
reveals what his article is all about: