In August 2012, in response to the claims that chemical weapons could be used in Syria, then-US President Barack Obama said "any movement of chemical weapons constitutes crossing a red line, and could impact the American response." The first signs that chemical weapons had been used came some two months later. In August 2013, more than 1,400 people were killed in a chemical attack in Ghouta, but the American response never followed. Obama sufficed with a deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons, whereby it would sign a non-proliferation treaty and transfer any chemical weapons in its possession to Russia. At the same time, the treaty allowed Russia and Iran to further entrench their footholds in the country and re-establish the Assad regime's sovereignty (which failed, of course).
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Several political explanations were offered in the wake of the fiasco: proximity to the presidential election in the US, and an aversion to fighting in Syria in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan. What wasn't highlighted enough, however, was that at that time, and perhaps even due to the war in Syria, the US had already initiated efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran.
As early as 2012, the Obama administration was already engaged in secret talks with Iran behind Europe's back, and had expressed a willingness to recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium and to remove all economic sanctions. These concessions paved the path to the other understandings stipulated in the deal, which was signed and ratified in UN Resolution 2331. In December 2015, Obama alluded to the link between the nuclear deal and the war in Syria, saying that he "respected Iran's assets in Syria." Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon later revealed that consideration for Iran played a role in Obama's decision not to order a military strike in Syria following the use of chemical weapons.
A decade later and we are now faced with a similar scenario. On one hand, US President Joe Biden and the West have imposed a series of significant sanctions against Russia. Meanwhile, a similarly significant decision was made not to send soldiers to fight in Ukraine. Indeed, despite the heavy economic sanctions imposed on Russia, it appears the banks involved in energy commerce were exempted from these sanctions. Here, too, we can find various political explanations for not going "all the way." But if we add the feverish nuclear talks currently taking place in Vienna to the equation, other questions arise. Does this have anything to do with the desire to preserve Russia as a mediator in the negotiations with Iran? Is Iran, for its part, exploiting America's eagerness to rekindle the deal to mitigate the economic harm to Russia? It was more explicitly reported this weekend that Russia demanded a guarantee from the US that the sanctions imposed on it for invading Ukraine would not infringe on its economic cooperation with Iran within the framework of restoring the nuclear deal.
Absurdly, and even dangerously, the war in Ukraine and the nuclear deal with Iran are two sides of the same coin. The war is overshadowing a disastrous return to a deficient nuclear deal and the "achievement" of securing a deal as war rages in Ukraine provides an illusion of diplomatic victory for which the West is so desperate. Thus, even as the US and Europe are publicly opposing Russia's violation of the world security order, they are simultaneously concealing their mutual interests with Russia in regards to a nuclear deal with Iran. In doing so, they are tragically laying the groundwork for the next world war, which could be nuclear against a new/old enemy: Iran.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
