For the past five years defenders of President Obama's Iran policy — such as Bloomberg's Jeffrey Goldberg — have been telling us that when push comes to shove the administration will do the right thing. Their assumption has been that although the president will give diplomacy every possible chance to succeed, he takes his responsibility to defend U.S. interests as well as to ensure the security of Israel and other Middle East nations threatened by the Iranian nuclear program very seriously. Though he was slow to adopt the kind of crippling sanctions that are now doing the Iranian economy real harm and wasted years on feckless attempts to engage the ayatollahs, they told us he would stick to his principles and not relent until the danger was averted even if that meant the eventual use of force.
But that argument lost some of its already shaky credibility this week with the administration's over-the-top reaction to Iran's performance at the revived P5+1 talks in Geneva. The enthusiasm with which Iran's proposals for lifting international sanctions were received betrayed what many of the president's critics already feared: Washington's desire to find a way out of the confrontation with Iran is far greater than its determination to actually end the Iranian threat. And that is why the new proposalbeing put forward for non-sanctions financial relief for Iran in exchange for nuclear concessions is a bad idea. It's not just that any easing up of the pressure on Tehran will only encourage the Islamist regime to believe that they needn't sacrifice their nuclear ambitions. It's that this administration can't be trusted to implement a plan, however well thought out, that charts a path for a retreat from its responsibility to see to it that Iran doesn't get a bomb.
As Goldberg wrote on Wednesday and the New York Times reports today, the plan for allowing Iran access to some of the $50 billion of its assets that are currently frozen in U.S. financial institutions was conceived at a highly reputable institution: the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies which is home to scholars who have been at the forefront of the battle to sound the alarm about Iranian nukes and other important issues. According to these reports, Mark Dubowitz, the Foundation's founder is the author of a scheme by which the U.S. would trade chunks of that cash that Iran wants in exchange for various Iranian moves such as the closing down of some or all of its nuclear plants, suspension of enrichment or the export of its stockpile of enriched uranium.