Inside the Iran Nuclear Deal

By Dr. Steve Elwart

The Islamic takeover in Iran was one of the most significant non-communist mass uprisings of the last century. It is now threatening vital economic and political interests of the Western world and the region. The Iranian Revolution also marked Islam’s revival as a force to be reckoned with in regional and international politics. They are a country with an agenda for regional, even global Islamic homogony. Since they are also seeking nuclear capability, the rest of the world has been forced to curtail their ambitions.

After months of negotiations, the West, led by the United States, got what they were looking for, a deal with Iran on its nuclear development program. The results of the negotiation leaves one to think that Iran got a very good deal and the West got … a deal.

For those who believe the U.S. got a bad deal, they are right, but that never was the point. Limiting Iran’s nuclear program was never the primary aim of the United States in these negotiations. The P5+1 was brow-beaten by the U.S. into the agreement for different aims:

1. Preventing an Israeli attack on Iran
2. Transforming the United States into a more forgiving, less imposing power
3. Establishing diplomacy as a great American good;
4. Turning Iran into a great regional power to maintain a balance of power in the region; and
5. Enhancing the world’s perception of the United States as a nation of vision and peace.

Concerns with the Agreement

Since the deal is an agreement and not a treaty, the United States Senate will not have to ratify it for the arrangement to go into effect. That is a good thing for the Obama administration. The agreement stood a good chance of not even getting twenty votes in the Senate since critics on both ends of the political spectrum have reservations about the terms of the arrangement. Some of those concerns are:

• The deal leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact. Its original negotiating position for the P5+1 countries (except for Russia) was that Iran would have its nuclear facilities open for inspection anytime, anywhere. The deal as finalized allows for inspections at some times and only in some places. (Secretary of State John Kerry stated after negotiations were completed that “anytime, anywhere” inspections were never on the table.) In return the West agreed to give up its sanctions and Iran agreed to partially give up its uranium enrichment program. However, research on its uranium enrichment and ballistic missile program will continue at its pre-agreement pace.
• The easing of sanctions on Iran could further destabilize the Middle East. Anywhere from $300 to $400 million will now flow into the Iranian economy. The money turned over to Iran will probably not go toward improving the lot of the Iranian people. Rather, it will flow into the coffers of the Iranian leadership. That means more money for groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi insurgency in Yemen. The extra money being spread around those countries will decrease the West’s influence in the region and increase Iran’s likelihood of becoming the regional hegemon.
• Arab countries in the region, plus Turkey, believe they need nuclear programs of their own. In May, the “Sunday Times” of London reported the Saudis had “taken the ‘strategic decision’ to acquire off-the-shelf atomic weapons from Pakistan,” citing unnamed senior American officials. While a Saudi defense official Tuesday dismissed this as “speculation,” he did not deny the report. With the United States disengaging from the region, countries such as Saudi Arabia feel they are being left unprotected and will have to fend for themselves. A nuclear-capable Iran will make a dangerous part of the world even more dangerous.
• The deal is temporary. It will only last 10 years. The deal will the expire. In the intervening decade between the signing of the agreement and its expiration, Iran will continue its work on a research and development program to develop a nuclear weapon. When one looks at the details of the agreement, one can see there isn’t even a slowdown in R&D for their nuclear program.

There is a reason why Iran demanded a 10 year agreement. This period is the limit to which Islam allows its followers to enter into a contract.

Taqiyya

Prominent Muslims have one face they show to the West and another to the folks back home; they are practicing one of the prime principles of their religion: Taqiyya. According to Cyrus H. Gordon “this is a distinctively Iranian institution, which survives into modern times.”

Taqiyya (or kitman) is “concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”

A one-word translation for this would be “dissimulation”. It could also be termed a religious lie. Taqiyya is one of the main tools of “stealth jihad”. The principle of Taqiyya extends into agreements and treaties as well.

In the concept of Taqiyya, an individual may lie or deny his or her own religion while posing as a member of some other faith if confronted with acute personal danger. Professor Gordon illustrated this from modern Iranian life by showing how Shiites of Iran are permitted to pose with impunity as Sunnites when going on the pilgrimage to Mecca, which is in the hands of the Arab Sunnites who have had a decades old rivalry with Shiites.

According to all four recognized schools of Sunni jurisprudence, called the Madhhab, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). The Encyclopedia of Islam states:

“The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

Dire Consequences

Even with the generous terms of the agreement toward Iran that country would have no compunction in violating the terms of the pact. Combined with the principle of Taqiyya, what is left is an agreement that is not worth the time nor effort put into it. The agreement will destabilize the region further, put Israel into even greater danger, and embolden Iran to be even more blatant in its support of terrorism.