Currently, the suspension of disbelief undermines the US posture of deterrence and vital US national security and commercial interests. It was demonstrated by President Obama, who – irrespective of Middle East reality – referred to the brutally-intolerant, terror-driven, anti-US, anti-infidel, repressive, tumultuous Arab Tsunami as the Arab Spring "casting off the burdens of the past,” "a story of self determination,” "a democratic upheaval,” "a peaceful opposition,” "rejection of political violence” and "a transition toward (multi-sectarian, multi-ethnic) democracy.”
"While the US considers the Ayatollahs a legitimate partner to negotiation, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States are in a state of war with Iran, which is the main source of chaos in the region.” The editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily added: "Has the Axis of Evil collapsed to the extent that President Obama is courting one of its key members?! Isn't this the same Teheran that has posed a clear and present danger to the Gulf States for the past 36 years?!”
*Transforming an agreement to a goal undermines the real goal;
*Details of an agreement are less critical than the details of the Ayatollahs' 36 year track record of supremacist, apocalyptic and megalomaniacal violence, martyrdom, sponsorship of global Islamic terrorism, subversion of pro-US Arab regimes, repression, anti-US hate education and policies, a systematic non-compliance with agreements and mastery of concealment;
*Such a track record warrants a "guilty until proven innocent” approach;
*Preconditioning an agreement upon a dramatic change in the conduct of the rogue, anti-US Ayatollahs would be "a poison pill” to a bad deal, but a vitamin to a good deal .
*A "bad deal” would nuclearize Iran; "no deal” would allow the US to choose the ways and
means to prevent Iran's nuclearization;
*Nuclear capabilities would extend the life of the repressive, rogue Ayatollah regime,
precluding any hope for civil liberties or home-induced regime change.
*An agreement – not preconditioned upon the transformation of the Ayatollahs –
would compound their clear and present threat to vital US interests;
*The transformation of the nature of the Ayatollahs - as a precondition to an agreement -
would prevent the nuclearization of the Ayatollahs;
*Precluding the option of military preemption has strengthened and radicalized the rogue Ayatollahs, and could lead to a nuclear war;
*Misrepresenting the option of military preemption as war defies reality, since it should
be limited to surgical - no troops on the ground - air and naval bombings of critical parts
of Iran's nuclear infrastructure from US bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman and
the Indian Ocean or aircraft carriers;
*A US military option forced Iran to end the 1980-88 war against Iraq, convinced Libya
to give away its nuclear infrastructure in 2003, and led Iran to suspend its nuclear
development in 2003.
*”Ironclad” supervision and intelligence failed to detect the nuclearization of the USSR,
China, Pakistan, India and North Korea;
*Unlike the USSR, which was deterred by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the
apocalyptic Ayatollahs would be energized by MAD-driven martyrdom.
*The zeal to strike a deal has led to a US retreat from six UN Security Council Resolutions,
which aimed to prevent Iran's nuclearization.
*A nuclear Iran, which celebrates "Death to America Day,” would devastate cardinal US interests: toppling the oil-producing Arab regimes (impacting supply and price of oil) and
other pro-US Arab regimes; intensifying Islamic terrorism, globally and on the US mainland; agitating Latin America; collaborating with North Korea; cooperating with Russia;
destabilizing Africa and Asia.
*The track record of the Ayatollahs, on the one hand, and compliance with agreements,
on the other hand, constitute an oxymoron;
*Suspension of disbelief, in the case of Iran's nuclearization, entails overlooking facts that
highlight the implausibility of a viable agreement with the Ayatollahs, thus damaging
crucial US interests and fueling a nuclear war.