“We have fooled,” concluded the Deputy National Security Advisor to the US President. Ben Rhodes, the negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal and the interference with reporting it retrospectively together. Thus, the discussion of the “moderates” in Iran was supposed to be completed – a pro-American, aiming at regime change group does not in Tehran.
On July 14, marked the first time the completion of the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5 + 1 countries. But the drumbeat seemed strangely subdued. There are good reasons: First, the contract behavior of Iran are subject to criticism; after all, the United States, Britain, France and Germany have already written a protest letter to the UN Secretary-General in March in which they contest the missile tests of Iran as a “violation of the spirit of the Treaty” and “defiance of a UN resolution” and Ban Ki ask Moon to appropriate actions.
On the other hand, the American mainstream media are deeply frustrated to furious, since they had to take note that they have been hineinmanipuliert literally from the White House over the years through a web of lies previously unimaginable scale in a positive commentary on the nuclear agreement with Iran. What happened?
Get out of the Middle East
On May 5, the New York Times Magazine published an interview by David Samuels with Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser to the American president, and some of its employees. This Rhodes described general communication policy with the press, radio, and television in the age diverse, tend to uncontrollable social media. But after that, it was down to business. When the conversation turned to the report and commentary on the nuclear agreement with Iran by the American media, Rhodes presented the important details of a grand deception of the press by the Obama administration, as in recent American history without precedent.
The action started in 2009 with the takeover of the presidency by Barack Obama. Although the new president had no specific plans for the Middle East, was for Rhodes early recognized that this region had determined the strategic thinking Obama. Even more. Obama apparently was looking for a way to quickly withdraw the increased US commitments towards countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel and Turkey. Rhodes encouraged by his own admission the President in this view. To solve this problem, the possibility has been identified to defuse through a nuclear deal with Iran, the dangerous situation in the region and to make a massive US presence unnecessary. With a “bold action” would, so Rhodes’s understanding that the United States begin the process of a comprehensive disengagement in the Middle East.
The implementation of this idea began in July 2012. Jake Sullivan, a close confidant of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, traveling under the utmost secrecy to Muscat (Oman) at a meeting with leaders of the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His mission was to convey to the Iranians that the United States “are ready to open a direct dialogue channel to solve the nuclear issue on the condition that Iran at the highest level, in turn, is ready to serious discussions”. The Iranians agreed.
From then on everything went very fast. In several rounds of negotiations in which Sullivan was later accompanied by Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, the delegations were fighting for the essential parts of a comprehensive agreement. After each round of negotiations, Sullivan and Burns presented the status of negotiations and the current problems of the President and his advisors. Sullivan recalled, “Before each round of negotiations, we discussed three, four or five hours in Washington.”
In March 2013, three months before the departure of the government Ahmadinejad, the design for an “Interim Agreement” was present, which later became the basis for the final agreement. But everything was secret. remained secret were the two letters that Obama had written to Ayatollah Khamenei in 2009 and 2012 Design. Leon Panetta said this recently that he never got as CIA director and later as defense minister to face these letters.
Officially took away the political non-relationship between the US and Iran. But now, after the completion of a draft framework turned inevitably the question of how long negotiations begun with the Israel-hater and Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad should be taught to the American public. There was quite a predicament.
From hardliners to moderates
But fate came to Obama and his kitchen cabinet to help. In June 2013, appointed after the parliamentary elections in Iran Hassan Rohani as head of state. Now came the moment of Ben Rhodes. Although the Obama administration, having regard to their analysis of intelligence, initially agreed that it is Rohani at best a modern hardliners themselves – conciliatory in tone, but hard on the matter – acted sat Rhodes a new way of seeing things through , He convinced Obama to publicly Rohanis office as secular process with the potential for system change in Iran to evaluate.
That gave Obama the opportunity to present the negotiations with Iran on a nuclear deal as a direct result of a dramatic upheaval in Iran and so to escape the odium of having taken up with Ahmadinejad. Subsequently, Rohani became one moderate whose policy could also support through a mutually beneficial nuclear treaty against the hardliners to Khamenei. Everything suddenly seemed possible and Obama’s idea was to a perspective in which Iran was to future regional power in the Middle East.
Rhodes’ idea worked. Without negotiations in Oman and to mention the fact that there was already a negotiated framework agreement, Obama justified now officially and publicly to enter the United States in negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. Thankfully we took in the US and throughout the world, this initiative of the United States noted.
But to this change in American politics to lead radical and lasting success, it was not done with mere announcements of the President. In particular, the media had to be pounded into that a government of moderates in Iran was at the helm, which was worth a generous approach to the negotiations all the efforts of the US and its allies. Rhodes and his associates organized this system a constant readiness to help the public and the media to provide appropriate information.
Moreover, Wherever criticism to Obama’s new policy was heard, held Rhodes and his staff immediately and comprehensively against. No negative comment had no “correction” – first and spontaneously on Twitter, in the aftermath, according to the importance of the critic or the goods, by professionals whose goodwill you look – had previously assured – in whatever way.
Rhodes and his colleagues flooded the American media scene literally with daily reports of success on the further consolidation of the moderates in Iran and the progress in the negotiations. The dropped them all the easier as the negotiated in the first phase of negotiations “Interim Agreement” already existed at the start of negotiations. In reality, it just a matter of the media went for months staged sham negotiations to a seemingly fundamental issue matter credibly pretend.
After agreeing on the “Interim Agreement” in November 2013. Although seriously discussed, but it was no longer about Basic, but only to fill in the detail Agreed. In one important respect, however, the negotiations were staged artfully: from time to time acute crisis situations were recorded – coupled with hectic travel and alarmist rhetoric ( “on a knife edge”, “shortly before failure”), which should maintain the fiction in Iran give it a permanent dispute moderates to Rohani with the hardliners to Khamenei on the meaning and design of the nuclear agreement.
But it was not like that. The decision on the key parameters of an agreement had already fallen at the start of the negotiations – in Washington and Tehran. And each side had the other long signaled that the agreement was to realize at any price – the Iranians because it bring them the internationally granted consent for the enrichment of uranium and exempt them from sanctions should; Obama because it east should bring the first and most crucial step in solving the US from the Middle Zone Problem.
In July 2015, the shadow boxing over and the negotiations were successfully completed. But still was Rhodes’ political mission does not end. Now it was time to bring the Treaty through Congress. This is also achieved. However, when the parliamentary hurdles in the United States and Iran had been overcome, the campaign of the White House ended abruptly. That was understandable. For a few weeks after the conclusion of the nuclear agreement, Iran indicated that it would cannibalize all the weaknesses of the Treaty mercilessly for his own benefit. The example of started from October 2015 medium-range missiles speaks volumes.
Was Iran “prohibits any activity concerning ballistic nuclear weapons capable missiles” in the old, but still transitional valid Resolution 1929 of the UN Security Council agreed to the nuclear deal and codified in a UN resolution settlement of that question contains only the diaper soft formulation, Iran was “invited” to participate in activities and to refrain from using nuclear-capable missiles. It was therefore only logical that the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded to corresponding protests by saying the contract did not prohibit but formulated only a non-binding recommendation or requirement.
Although entering an American Responsible, Iran’s behavior infringes not the codified agreement, but rather the spirit of the Treaty, Zarif wiped aside. While Obama himself tried to tackle the problem by a trivializing statement that “the Iranians have repeatedly bans in missile tests violated” would have, but this helpless reaction made it clear that Obama himself made no great hopes more about the behavior of the moderates.
Then it happened in quick succession with the disenchantment of moderates and at the same time also with the expectations on fundamental changes inside Iran. It began with Leon Panetta. When asked whether there was indeed a viable group of moderates in Iran in addition to the hard-liners, said the ex-CIA chief with a simple no. He continued: “There was never doubt that the armed forces and the supreme leader rule the country with an iron fist. There was also no doubt that the claim that there is a significant opposition, would get any significance. ”
The penultimate act of this development for sober analysis of the situation in Iran delivered a few weeks ago Wendy Sherman, the US chief negotiator in the nuclear talks. Speaking at a public discussion they had indeed no doubts about the value of the agreement arise, but their verdict on Iran was devastating for many listeners: “There is in Iran only hardliners and hard liner. And Rohani is a hardliner. ”
The dramatic end of the story about the years of deliberately false information to the public by the White House on the situation in Iran finally sat the inventor of this rogue prank, Ben Rhodes, himself. In his conversation with David Samuels, on the reports that the New York Times Magazine , Rhodes makes the cat not only out of the bag, it also makes the entire US media scene, including the Washington precious springs and all, think tanks, ridiculous. The quintessence of his misleading the media he summarized with: “We have made a fool” ( “We drove them crazy”).
With the testimony of Ben Rhodes, the discussion about the existence and importance of the moderates in Iran would actually be over. But it is not, neither in the US nor in Europe. Reluctant many media representatives say goodbye to the beloved thesis about the seemingly unstoppable rise of a system-critical group of significant size in Iran. Moreover, even had so well speculate about the future of Iran – which of course would be a great one – about the end of the Iranian revolution and the grandiose prospects of economic cooperation between the West and the politically refined oil and gas giants Iran.
It therefore seems still hardly an article about Iran, where Rohani is not referred to as “moderate.” Meanwhile play the Iranians with this theater as the fact has shown that in the last election, numerous well-known hardliners could enter into a choice list of moderates to give the impression of a starched moderate camp for uninformed third parties.
What the revelations of Rhodes can mean for the future of the nuclear agreement is unclear. The fact that many deceived streamline their frustration by the defiant statement that you have helped in any case a good thing to break, not bulky duration. It is expected that many media representatives do not lift a finger more, if the contract should be in trouble. This also applies to the run astray politicians, for after the election in the fall anyway pending a reassessment of foreign policy decisions Obama. One thing is certain already clear: On the Iranian side has to continue to do it with hardliners and hard hardliners, and not with the chimera of a pro-American, aiming at regime change group tends majority capable Moderate.