'Kill Salman Rushdie, not the Iran Deal!'
The response to the assault on Rushdie is especially striking when compared to that of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist and former government official, who broke with the Saudi government and moved to Washington, where he became a dissident and wrote a column for the Washington Post.For Iran, It Is All about the Breakout Time
The brutal killing of Khashoggi by agents of the Saudi government was front-page news for many months and continues to be mentioned whenever Saudi Arabia is discussed, and always with the allegation that the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is personally responsible for the murder. After a few weeks of denial, the Saudi government accepted responsibility and arrested and tried the perpetrators. More importantly, the Saudis promised never to engage in extra-judicial and extra-territorial killings again.
The contrast between the two cases begs the question of why Iran’s now successful sponsorship of violence against Rushdie is being glossed over, even though Tehran also recently tried to assassinate several former US government officials who are now under Secret Service protection. The silence is likely because the Biden administration is desperate to re-enter the nuclear deal with Tehran, even as Iran reportedly refuses, as part of the deal, to renounce the prospect of killing US government officials. One view is that an agreement will also lead to extra Iranian oil barrels and thus a decrease in the price of oil at the pump, which will help the Democrats in the upcoming November elections.
Another reason why the perpetrators of the attack on Rushdie are ignored is because he is seen to have offended Muslims and insulted Islam. Khomeini’s false claims about Rushdie are taken at face value and thus he deserves what he gets just as the satirical journalists of Charlie Hebdo also got their comeuppance. This ugly logic, which masquerades as respect for other cultures, is insulting to Muslims because it associates their faith with Iran’s state-sponsored campaign of violence. And, in fact, a close reading of Rushdie’s books shows that he also had deep appreciation for the beauty and achievements of Islamic civilization—see among other books his The Moor’s Last Sign or The Enchantress of Florence.
Iran’s official response to the recent attack has been to blame Rushdie and claim that he deserved what he got while coyly denying direct involvement. The death sentence is still up on the Internet and praise fills Iranian newspapers for the attempt on the author’s life. In sharp contrast, the Muslim World League’s Secretary General, Sheikh Muhammad al-Issa, called the attack on Rushdie a crime that Islam does not condone. One of the leading Islamic authorities in the world, and a cleric sponsored by Saudi Arabia, condemned the attack as a criminal act, thereby rejecting the weaponization of Islam for political ends.
The difference between the governments in Tehran and Riyadh could not be clearer. Yet because the White House is intent on reviving the nuclear deal, large sections of America’s political and media elites seem bent on erasing reality in favor of a fantasy that a peaceful Iran will emerge after the deal and will be “integrated” with its neighbors. What happened on stage in Chautauqua, New York should be a warning that deal or no deal the Iranian regime will continue to pursue violent means and use religion for its political ends.
Over the past 18 months, the world has been watching the U.S. play a match of regional tennis: the nuclear talks with Iran. Tehran and the West have each been hitting the ball back and forth. We occasionally get news about the deal being "closer" or that the latest draft is "the final offer" and that it is "just a matter of days" or that "the window is closing." Both sides prefer this process to play itself out forever, very much like various inconclusive sporting events.WSJ: Israel Makes Final Push to Shape Restored Iran Nuclear Deal
Iran is hardly the most pressing issue on the U.S. foreign policy docket. As for Iran, time is on its side, because a protracted process allows it to continue with the nuclear program. Enrichment levels have already reached 60% purity levels; Tehran's coffers from trade have been filling up, in part because of the rise in oil and fuel prices and Chinese consumption; and Russia has been buying Iranian arms.
The talks have allowed Iran to divert attention from what it really cares about: shortening the time it would take to reach a bomb -- the breakout time -- to zero. This means it would be ready to break toward a nuclear weapon once the talks collapse, and by the time the U.S. comes up with a Plan B, it will have already gotten a bomb.
For Iran, the never-ending tennis match is just a ruse for the real game. From what has been reported in the media, the breakout time currently stands at several weeks. One can assume that Iran will not be foolish enough to show their hand, holding some cards close to the chest. Thus, when the talks are history, they will break toward the bomb, and the U.S. will face an excruciating dilemma it had wanted to avoid all along: accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or a bloody war with the murderous regime in Tehran.
The Israeli government has in recent days broken with its quiet approach to diplomacy on the Iran deal negotiations. "This deal isn't a good deal. It was not a good deal when it was signed back in 2015. Today, the dangers it entails are even greater," said Mr. Lapid in a briefing to journalists last week.
A U.S. official said Israel's election season was partly responsible for the more heated rhetoric coming from politicians there around the deal, which is broadly unpopular in Israel. The Biden administration has kept Israel closely informed about the negotiations, said people familiar with the discussions, allowing Israel to nudge privately against concessions and potentially heighten Washington's sensitivity to Israel's concerns, leading the U.S. to tread more carefully.
U.S. officials say a restored deal would substantially curtail Iran's nuclear program, remove most of its stockpile of enriched uranium and oblige Iran to remove hundreds of advanced centrifuges that produce enriched uranium. It would increase Iran's breakout time -- how quickly it can produce enough nuclear fuel for one weapon -- to six to seven months compared with the current time span of a few weeks.
Israeli officials say restoring the 2015 deal now is dangerous because Iran has made so much progress on its nuclear program since then. The agreement has sunset provisions that essentially allow Iran to enrich unlimited amounts of uranium by 2030.