Rouhani: The U.S. should probably pay Iran reparations for all the damage inflicted on us
posted at 5:21 pm on May 22, 2014 by Erika Johnsen
By all means, tell us how you really feel. The WFB reports:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is demanding that the Obama administration pay Tehran reparations for “hostile policies” that have cost the Iranian people “much loss and damage,” according to the country’s state-run media.
Rouhani said that reparations from the United States would make him more willing to negotiate in good faith with the United States and increase steps to broaden ties between the nations, according to an interview he gave Wednesday evening on China’s CCTV network.
Although Rouhani did not outline a monetary figure he believes would be acceptable to placate the Iranian people, he told CCTV that the “Iranian people have suffered a lot as a result of the hostile policies of the U.S.” and that he “expect[s] White House politicians to abandon their past behavior of ignoring Iranians’ interests,” according to excerpts of the interview published by Iran’s state-run Fars News Agency. …
“If the U.S., in practice, abandons its hostile policy toward the Iranian nation and compensates for its past [antagonism], a new situation can be envisaged for the future of both nations,” Rouhani was quoted as saying.
Ohhhhh, so what you’re saying is, after we have not only lifted every economic sanction on the book but also directly given you cash to make up for the long-term damage, then you might feel more inclined to be more cooperative and transparent and to back off of your nuclear program? Brilliant! How did President Obama’s crack foreign-policy team not think of such a magnanimous and promising diplomatic maneuver?
Iran has already received some pre-deal sanctions relief at the hands of the Obama administration (an ostensible $7 billion that looks a lot more like $20 billion in real life), but Iran is still feeling plenty of heat in its supposed “resistance economy.” To the Western powers trying to get Iran to commit to not developing nuclear weapons, that’s kind of the point, but Iranian officials are going to say whatever they need to say to achieve their dual purposes of sanctions relief and nuclear development — goals with which the White House basically helped them out this week when it moved to kill an amendment from Sen. Bob Corker that would have merely allowed Congress to submit a public resolution of (dis)approval on any eventual deal. Says Jennifer Rubin at WaPo:
If you had any doubt that the White House orchestrated the scuttling of an amendment to require submission of any final Iran deal to Congress, the Obama team removed it with peevish, angry remarks leaked, of all places, to the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz: ”The Obama Administration came out swinging on Tuesday night against efforts to curtail its negotiations with Iran, saying that it is ‘absolutely opposed’ to the proposed Corker Amendment to the Israel-U.S. Strategic Partnership Act that would give Congress a direct role in approving any nuclear deal with Tehran.”
That is directly contrary to public representations by Obama officials that Congress must be involved in a final deal since it would affect current sanctions legislation. It also suggests that the deal the Obama team is prepared to conclude may differ substantially from what Congress and our allies expect. Otherwise why make a fuss over submission of the deal after it is completed?
It is revealing that the president and his advisers are never this angry with Iran. Israel and its supporters receive the “Get off the lawn!” treatment.