Sometimes a New York Times guest op-ed is so incredibly daft that it takes your breath away and leaves you wondering why Andrew Rosenthal and friends published such an opinion piece. "Iran, From Enemy to Ally" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/opinion/iran-from-enemy-to-ally.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0), by David Patrikarakos, who, we are told, is "a journalist and an associate fellow at the Institute of Iranian Studies at the University of St. Andrews, [and] is the author of 'Nuclear Iran: The Birth of an Atomic State,'" is just such a guest op-ed.
At a time when Obama is finding it increasingly difficult to sell his unenforceable "agreement to agree" with Khamenei (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/12/thomas-friedman-bibi-and-barack-sequel.html) to Congress, The New York Times has published this contrived laundry list of reasons why the recent agreement to agree with Iran offers "rapprochement and, eventually, even strategic cooperation with Iran."
Patrikarakos, of course, acknowledges that Iran is a "human rights violator and a sponsor of terrorism." Yup, Iran hangs homosexuals from cranes in the middle of Tehran, stones to death women accused of adultery, and tortures and rapes Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, Christians and political dissenters in Evin Prison. Iran also "sponsored" the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombing by Hezbollah, which killed 241 American servicemen, and the 1994 bombing by Hezbollah of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 and wounding hundreds. But heck, Iran, according to Patrikarakos, can now "can help with intelligence and regional knowledge" against al-Qaeda.
Does this argument remind you of something? It should. Several decades ago, there were also those who argued that the US should form an alliance with Hitler (also a "human rights violator") to fight the Godless Bolsheviks.
Israel? Patrikarakos writes:
"No matter how many peace treaties are signed with Arab leaders, only Iran has proved it can work with Israel."
That's right: Threats from Iran's mullahs to annihilate Israel should just be ignored, given that Israel once had friendly relations with the Shah. Yes, Israel should ignore Khamenei's declarations that Israel is a "cancerous tumor that needs to be excised" and expect that all will be lovey-dovey once Obama lets Iran have its bomb. Does Patrikarakos take us all for naifs?
Patrikarakos's conclusion:
"But both Mr. Obama and Mr. Rouhani have proved they can go beyond their respective hard-liners to make a deal. The 21st-century Middle East is a new and dangerous place. To lead the region into a better future, Washington must adapt and leave old enmities behind."
A moderate Rouhani has "gone beyond" Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei? Apparently unbeknownst to Patrikarakos, Khamenei runs the show in Iran. Needless to say, Patrikarakos doesn't bother to tell us how Rouhani boasted prior to the Iranian presidential elections how he lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.
Obama and Rouhani are in fact birds of a feather, fighting "their respective hard-liners"? Excuse me, but I feel a wave of nausea coming on.
"To lead the region into a better future, Washington must adapt and leave old enmities behind"? I think what Patrikarakos really meant to say was that to lead the region into a would-be "better future," Washington must leave old friends behind. God help us.
