Iran’s fist, clenched tighter — VOICES for REASON

“[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” Barack Obama suggested, nearly a year ago. Since then the Iranian regime has found itself inundated by the administration’s cordial invitations (to a July Fourth barbecue; to talks over its nuclear program; etc.) and unctuous affirmations of our good will (see this video). Even after the mass protests in Iran challenging the theocracy’s legitimacy, Team Obama declined to lend its support to the protesters and thereby endorsed the regime that was gunning them down in the streets. By the logic of Obama’s policy, all this should have induced Tehran to put aside its “decades of mistrust” (of us), and halt its nuclear program and its patronage of Islamist terrorism.

So how’s this working out?

Iran has just turned down the latest U.S.-backed deal meant to prevent it acquiring nuclear material suitable for a bomb. Instead, Tehran announced plans to build 10 additional nuclear facilities on the scale of the one it already has up and running at Natanz. With that added capacity, it has been estimated that the Iranian regime could produce enough nuclear fuel for something like 160 bombs. Per year.

Then, over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the Iranian parliament passed a law “earmarking $20 million to support militant groups opposing the West.” What’s significant about this is not the amount of money, or the fact that the government is officially budgeting for the sponsorship of Islamic terrorism (in the past Iran has spent tens of millions on Hezbollah alone). What’s significant here is Iran’s self-confidence.

Obama’s policy of so-called engagement (read: appeasement) is working as predicted: it bolsters Tehran’s militancy.

image: flickr/.faramarz