"It will be unproductive if the US is portrayed as poking its nose into the Iranian debate surrounding the election of the president," Obama stated during the events of the Green Revolution in Iran in 2009, adding: "This is not a matter in which the American people should interfere."
This policy of Obama was not accidental.
He saw Iran as a potential ally in the Middle East, which would help realize his vision of creating a new "balance" between Shiite and Sunni forces.
In order to get the boots of the Iranian soldiers on the ground in the war against ISIS in Iraq and later also in Syria - a dual policy was required.
Separation between the murderous and aggressive regime towards his people and other countries, and between the attempt to share a new route of alliances and interests.
This was also the conceptual infrastructure at the basis of the rush to the nuclear agreement with Iran.
The issues of global terrorism and ballistic missiles remained outside the agreement, as if they concerned a country other than the one with which they signed conditions to delay the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The West looked from here, and closed its eyes from there, enabling Iran's double life.
"moderates" it with a nuclear agreement, but does not interfere with terrorism.
Cooperates with her in one war, but lets her operate without interference elsewhere.
Later, this policy failed miserably.
Iran also flocked to a military nuke, both intensified global terrorism and continued to oppress its population with a heavy hand.
And yet, a sequence of events in recent months presents a worrying picture.
The statements on the nuclear issue are sometimes hours apart from the statements related to the demonstrations, but somehow the proximity of time, place and people does not extract from the West the overall understanding of the situation.
Or worse, there are those who deliberately continue to reproduce the dual policy.
Iran one and Iran two.
In mid-October, President Biden spoke out about the civil unrest in Iran, saying that "the United States stands by the brave women", and near the election he added: "We will liberate Iran". So far, one Iran. At the same time, Anthony Blinken explained that the non-revival of an agreement The nuke stems from Iran's excessive demands. I mean, if it weren't for these demands, would an agreement have been signed? And this regardless of the internal happenings in Iran? Well, there are two Irans for you. A few weeks later, Iran announces that it will enrich uranium to a level of 60 percent at the Purdue facility as well, And the head of the Atomic Energy Agency explained, in the same context, that Iran already has enough uranium to produce more than one bomb.
Meanwhile, in front of the first Iran, last Thursday, the UN Human Rights Council decided to condemn the regime's violation of the human rights of the protesters and announced the intention to establish a committee to investigate this. And the second Iran, Britain, France and Germany said, on the same day, that " Iran's step (to enrich uranium to 60 percent) is a challenge to the global nuclear non-proliferation system.
And does nothing.
While in reality all the components are intertwined - the violent and murderous regime, the rush to a nuclear bomb and the financing of terrorist affiliates in the world - the policy towards Iran continues to be conducted in almost complete separation.
There is nuclear Iran, and there are human rights, and no one bothers to explicitly point out the wrong policy.
Not to mention the response to the aggression in Yemen, the Gulf of Oman and Syria, which included removing the Houthis, who are supported by Iran, from the list of terrorist organizations.
On the other hand, the popular struggle taking place in Iran today is a struggle to overthrow the regime with all its murderous layers and all its aggressive evils.
The Iranian women and men scream it clearly.
If the West would understand and act to help the uprising and overthrow the regime, with all the means at its disposal - all the dangers posed by the first and second Iran would be solved at once.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
