On August 20 the washingtonpost published an editorial affirming Iranian regional aggression, terming Iran’s ambitions as “toxic” and confirming the concern over the temporary nature of the nuclear deal with Iran. The editorial approves the assessment that “most of its provisions will expire in eight to thirteen years, leaving Iran free to stockpile an unlimited quantity of nuclear materials”. After raising all the flaws of the deal and the fact that the deal has not moderated Iran as promised, the editorial sticks to its main thrust that the nuclear deal should be upheld and certified.
According to the editorial’s logic, all the weaknesses of the deal lead to the conclusion that Trump will be making a “bad decision” if he works to ascertain Iranian non-compliancy. Disregarding all the facts they confirmed before, they presume that the only motivation for Trump to do such a thing is his “compulsive urge to spoil President Barack Obama’s legacies”. As if the weaknesses of the deal have nothing to do with the decision. By disregarding all the weaknesses of the deal and its outcome, they ignore the possibility that their logic may be driven by a compulsive urge to uphold the deal (and President Barack Obama’s legacies), at all cost.
On August 18, the nypost published an op-ed titled measuring Trump, Iran’s nuke violations and other comments, quoting Heshmat Alavi, who states that the Mullahs of Iran are “hell bent to continue wreaking havoc and expanding influence”, asserting that the deal does not address the destructive belligerence of Iran and refuting the claim that there is “no evidence” to hold Tehran in violation of the nuclear deal. As violations they detail “Tehran has exceeded its heavy water production cap, is testing more advanced centrifuges, is illicitly procuring highly sensitive nuclear and ballistic technology and is surpassing its uranium enrichment cap, another key compliance factor”.
As Heshmat Alavi notes in his original article in forbes, the pro-Iran deal camp (Iranian apologists) and sympathizers acknowledge the fact that the deal did not address Iran’s regional belligerence, just they do not draw the necessary conclusions from this. He reminds all that the North Korea deal, under the Clinton administration, ended up in dismal failure. It left the world with a rogue state equipped with at least 20 nuclear bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles and the technology to miniaturize a nuclear warhead in its payload.
The Iranian apologists do seem to disconnect. They acknowledge the failings of the deal and the emerging threat, yet still cling to the deal. There seems to be a detachment of facts from necessary conclusions.