The world dodged a bullet last week — a big, nuclear-tipped bullet. With the sanctions againstIran finally beginning to show results, the United States rushed to cash in on that small, surface movement. At the last minute, the French put a stop to (or at least postponed) an agreement that would have been a disaster for the entire world.
Before concluding any high stakes treaty with Iran, a fundamental problem needs to be addressed. Do their overtures represent a genuine desire for peace, or another attempt to delay the West from taking actions that would stop them from acquiring the nuclear weapons they clearly want. If they get them, will they use them like North Korea has — as a means to occasionally blackmail their neighbors into propping up a failing regime? Or, do they have something even more sinister in mind?
Two years ago, the Iranian government produced and released a documentary called “The Coming is Near.” It told about the “Mahdi” — an Islamic messiah many Iranian Muslims believe will one day come to earth and begin a worldwide Islamic “caliphate.” They expect him to arrive during a time of chaos and crisis. And they are apparently not above manipulating world events in order to bring about such chaos.
I should note here that some accuse Christians of trying to manipulate world events in order to expedite the return of Jesus. But no real Christian sees the Second Coming as something we can hasten with violence. We follow the Prince of Peace. He said, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” and we strive to be exactly that. Yes, we see dark things on the horizon, but they are not of our making. World events are turning as He said they would. It is His doing, not ours.
But many of Iran's leaders have a completely different view when it comes to the return of the “Mahdi.” They seem willing to devastate the world if it means bringing about “The Coming.” When discussing an agreement with Iran, we need to ask — do they want to live and prosper in a world where Israel also lives and prospers? Or, are they willing to do anything, say anything in order to get nuclear weapons and be able to use them against Israel — even knowing the death that could reign down on them as a result? Are they, as a nation, willing to do in the world what the suicide bombers they support do in buses?
In 1987, when Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, he said, the United States would “Trust, but verify.” Mikhail Gorbachev said to him, “You repeat that at every meeting.” Reagan responded, “I like it.”
“Trust but verify” was richly Reaganesque. It showed his inherent friendliness, but also a no-nonsense toughness. It recognized that relationships are built on trust, while also recognizing that trust and accountability go hand in hand. It was a real “road map for peace.”
Since then, in one form or another, “trust but verify” has been repeated by every U.S.president, and many other leaders around the world. President Obama used those words a couple of months ago regarding Putin’s peace plan for Syria.
In dealing with Iran, the level of trust is exceedingly low on both sides. Iran has a history of violent abuse of its citizens, exporting terrorism around the world, and promising to wipe out the nation of Israel. A few days ago, they held a “Death to America” concert at the site of the former U.S. Embassy. They continue to use those words — “Death to America” — as the slogan for their military. A meaningful nuclear deal with Iran will require a lot of extra “verify” to make up for the missing “trust.” It must include verification without restrictions. But so far, that idea doesn’t even seem to be on the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment