WarSclerotic

Iran’s charm offensive managed to reach the press at Palais des Congres in Geneva, where a correspondent from Iranian state television didn’t hesitate to invite this writer for a special interview, despite knowing that I represent an Israeli newspaper.

“You see, Iran is changing,” a Swiss journalist who watched all this unfold told me. “Even the journalists are trying to see just how far they can take it.”

Yes, the Iranian enigma was busy working overtime this week, active on three fronts: Geneva, Tehran and Rome. Even the Jews of Iran were enlisted to the cause along with journalists and bloggers.

This week, it became clear just how much Iran wanted a deal, and the international community was willing to oblige. Suddenly, however, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, perhaps allowing his DNA to get the best of him, decided to spoil the party by reverting to the kind of revolutionary rhetoric that was supposedly a thing of the past. Or at least that’s what we’ve been told in the three months since the elections.

Iranian officials may have come to Geneva seeking to sign an interim agreement that will remove some of the sanctions and allow it to come up off of its knees, but they are also intent on redeeming their honor and demonstrating toughness. Only a nation that invented chess knows how to do both. The strategy was to come to Geneva as if Iran was insulted by the treatment it received two weeks ago and to begin the discussions in search of its lost honor.

“The days in which the powers can dictate to us what we can do are behind us,” a member of the Iranian delegation told me.

It was in the White House, of all places, where officials were growing eager for the deal to be consummated even though they are unwittingly contributing to the dawn of a new world order. British Prime Minister David Cameron also helped these efforts along, becoming the first British premier in 11 years to speak with his Iranian counterpart, Hasan Rouhani, about the imminent deal and other matters.

“Why does Netanyahu insist on preventing the Iranian people from attaining nuclear energy?” the veteran Iranian journalist asked me. “Why is Israel, with help from France, trying to prevent an agreement that will only contribute to world peace? Why is Israel totally ignoring the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report, which stated that Iran’s nuclear program is not intended for military purposes?”

Somehow, the Iranians forgot that the IAEA report from 2011 unequivocally stated that they were working toward building an atomic bomb. In Geneva, they were eager to portray themselves as the closest thing to Mother Teresa.

The most interesting aspect of the talks is that nobody bothered to demand that the Iranians explain why they have denied inspectors access to the Parchin military site, where the regime is allegedly conducting nuclear testing. Nobody bothered to ask why they needed plutonium in the first place (for its heavy-water reactor in Arak).

Yesterday, the prestigious French daily Le Figaro ran an extensive piece on the Iranian nuclear program titled “A.R. 10 — The Secret Factory for the Plutonium-Fueled Nuclear Bomb.” The article notes that in the factory, in the city of Shiraz, the Iranians are developing plutonium for military purposes and research. The factory was mentioned by Fereydoon Abbasi, the Iranian nuclear scientists who once headed the country’s Atomic Energy Organization. Still, nobody asks these questions while Iran is supposedly working on nothing.

The ‘rabid dog’ speech

Tehran realized that Washington and Moscow were eager to make a deal, which is why is Khamenei felt uninhibited making his inflammatory speech.

“They think that if they put pressure on the Iranian people, then Iran will retreat,” he said in an appearance before the Revolutionary Guards. “They are wrong. They do not know the Iranian people.”

The supreme leader continued, drawing his red lines.

“We are hearing statements from dogs, like the Zionist regime, who say that Iran is a threat to the world, but it is they, this illegitimate regime, who have brought nothing but evil to this world. It is they who are a threat to the world,” Khamenei said. He added that he did not understand why France was supporting the Zionist regime, “which will not survive.”

In background conversations on Wednesday, the Iranians tried to explain that Khamenei made the speech for domestic political purposes. His target audience was fundamentalist in nature, and the political reality compels him to talk in this nature.

Before Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton sat down to have lunch together, Khamenei had already spelled out his terms.

“Iran will not give up its legitimate nuclear rights,” he said. The supreme leader was obviously referring to his government’s right to enrich uranium on Iranian soil. On this issue, the Iranians appear to have the upper hand. Nobody in Geneva said a word suggesting that the international community was opposed to allowing Iran to enrich uranium, albeit at a low grade.

We also discovered in Geneva this week that the Iranians have a new Satan in their sights. That distinction no longer applies solely to the United States, the Great Satan, and Israel, the Little Satan. Now, we have a “Medium-Sized Satan,” France. Paris’ last-minute veto of the interim agreement two weeks ago and French President Francois Hollande’s visit to Israel this week served to stoke Iranian enmity for French policy.

From Iran’s point of view, France is upsetting the new world order. So the Iranians can’t understand why France is creating trouble? They appear to have forgotten that even back in the days of Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, France has always been the toughest of the three European powers — the others being Britain and Germany — in dealings with Tehran.

Reports in Paris-based media outlets this week also stirred bitter, anti-French sentiments among the Iranian delegates. On the day talks resumed this week, Le Figaro quoted a French diplomat as saying that he was concerned by the prospect of a “liquidation sale that will lead to a situation in which the mistakes of 2003 and 2004 will repeat themselves.” Le Figaro reminded its readers that the number of centrifuges leaped from 164 to over 18,000 in the span of a decade, more reason to be suspicious of Iranian intentions.

From a technical standpoint, the talks in Geneva hone in on the details of the Iranian nuclear project, including the 185 kilograms of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent. The talks also deal with the issue of how the Iranians will convert all of their uranium stockpiles to low-grade uranium.

What will happen to the heavy-water reactor in Arak? The Iranians have resolved to fight for it, just as they are insisting on their right to enrich uranium, as Zarif reminded us this week. He urged the international community to take advantage of this “historic opportunity.” He also appealed to the French to cease placing obstacles before an agreement.

These talks are first and foremost political in nature. France, one of six world powers, has yet to be convinced that Iran has abandoned its ambitions to attain a nuclear bomb. Hollande himself said so explicitly. The most recent IAEA report, which was issued just before this latest round and just after the previous round of talks, claims that Iran halted its nuclear program for the first time in years, but that it has not undertaken any radical changes.

Experts worldwide believe that Iran is close to the bomb. The problem is that the proposed deal does not require Iran to undo what it has gained thus far. This is the greatest source of worry for Jerusalem. It’s no wonder that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exerted a great deal of effort in his talks this week with Hollande, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the American administration toward one end, minimizing the damage.

Behind the scenes of the Iranian saga, there is a good amount of diplomatic tap-dancing and score-settling among friends. Paris is eager to deal some retribution to the U.S. for the stunt Washington pulled this summer with Syria.

For those in need of a reminder, on Aug. 21, President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in an attack on Syrian civilians, killing 1,400 people. France demanded military action against Syrian targets and President Barack Obama committed to helping out in this endeavor. But then Obama did a complete about-face, seeking approval from Congress and then finally inking a deal with Putin before U.S. lawmakers had a chance to vote.

Hollande was left out in the cold. France, which had already begun preparations to send fighter jets, understood that Syria was not Libya or Mali. It wasn’t capable of acting alone. This was hard to digest for policymakers in Paris.

When it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue, the French do have the wherewithal to scuttle a deal, since this is a diplomatic problem that doesn’t require the sacrificing of soldiers. A French official told me this week that Hollande has nothing to worry about when it comes to his domestic political standing (the president’s public approval rating is a paltry 15 percent). The opposition in France supports his hard-line stance toward the Iranian nuclear program, and public opinion has already grown accustomed to the leadership’s tough, prideful approach. If the French can differentiate themselves from the Americans, the public will approve.

France’s opposition to the war in Iraq a decade ago bolstered the government’s popularity in the eyes of its citizens. On the other hand, it is uncertain as to whether the Iraq issue and the Iranian question carry the same weight. When it comes to Iran, France is taking the lead role in the war to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, before talks got underway in Geneva, all parties began exuding optimism. First it was Putin, who told his Iranian counterpart, Rouhani, that “we are close to agreement.”

At the same time, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry tried to temper expectations. The president continued to lobby senators against imposing new sanctions against Iran in order to avoid short-circuiting the negotiations. Some viewed this as America’s way of not appearing too weak in order to assuage its allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, while giving the appearance that Washington was looking out for its allies.

Others claim that the administration is facing major problems in Congress. While U.S. lawmakers, led by Senator John McCain, didn’t want to tighten sanctions, they did want to receive more assurances from the Iranian side.

Chinese President Xi Jinping joined the fray and lobbied for an agreement. After speaking with Rouhani, he said, “Iran wishes to reach an agreement that will ensure its rights and it will prove that its nuclear project is intended for civilian purposes.” China always took a position lined up nicely with the Iranians.

As for the Germans, the French weekly Le Point reported that Berlin was not too pleased with the French foreign minister’s torpedoing of an agreement during the previous round. The agreement that was mulled in Geneva two weeks ago was supposed to slow down the Iranian sprint to the bomb. In practice, however, the French say it allows Iran to continue toward its goal, this time under the protective cover of negotiations.

It is very similar to what is taking place in Syria. The Assad regime’s agreement to allow international inspectors to dismantle its chemical weapons arsenal is essentially giving the president the green light to continue his campaign against the opposition. A whole new world indeed.

The major question asked this week is just how far France is willing to go. On this point, it is interesting to refer back to a speech given by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius earlier this month. In his appearance before the Quai d’Orsay’s research institute, CAPS, he said: “It seems that the U.S. is not interested any longer in getting sucked in to crises that do not correspond to its new worldview and the new national interests of the U.S. Those in Washington who favor a withdrawal from regions that are viewed as ‘non-strategic’ are increasing their influence. That apparently explains the fact that there wasn’t an American response to the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.”

Fabius’ remarks demonstrate the extent to which the Syrian crisis is tied to the Iranian question. All of a sudden, it is Washington that has become moderate, while France has grown hawkish. It is the opposite of what took place with regards to the Iraq war 10 years ago. It is also worth remembering that it was France that took the lead in the campaign against Libya, with the U.S. “leading from behind.” France also went solo in its war on Islamic terrorism in Mali, another illustration of what kind of muscle with which Paris came into the Geneva talks. Nonetheless, Fabius did tell French television that while Paris will remain vigilant, it does say “yes to civilian nuclear project, no to an atomic bomb.”

The hard-line French policy; U.S. desire to boost its influence in Asia and the Pacific; the traumatic memory of its Iraq and Afghanistan missteps; and the U.S. people’s desire to keep away from more world crises have conspired to create a strategic vacuum in the Middle East, according to Fabius. The French want to occupy that vacuum.

Officials in Jerusalem, however, warned against being too quick ruling out the U.S. Is Washington really willing or able to disengage from the Middle East, as observers in Paris claim? That’s unclear. U.S. officials point to U.S. sponsorship of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations as evidence of their continued interest in the region. In reality, however, nobody believes these talks will succeed.

Israeli officials remind us that Washington failed in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Obama is facing domestic troubles as well. He is already into the second year of his last term in office. He will be looking to leave a legacy. Will Iran give him that opportunity? If so, then for how long? Who knows? Perhaps Obama decided to make do with a temporary legacy.