Editorial: Is N-deal a guarantee Iran will fall in line?

Aggressive, authoritarian regimes regard compromise as a sign of weakness. Adolf Hitler only ever offered compromises that he had no intention of keeping. In 1938, Britain and France made a massive compromise. They signed away the freedom of Czechoslovakia on the basis of Hitler’s promise he had no further territorial ambitions. Yet just a year later, the world was plunged into war.
Is it unfair to compare the diplomacy of the current Iranian government with that of Nazi Germany? Many decent patriotic Iranians might say so. But if they reflected, they might realize their error. Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia are a constant threat to their liberty. They can surely feel no genuine pride in the ruinous path their country has taken since the 1979 Khomeini revolution.
The international community took a big risk in Geneva when the P5+1 inked the deal to end sanctions. Iran committed to end its weaponization of nuclear fuel. It has since poured concrete into a reactor that was part of that program. It is decommissioning associated centrifuges.
But does this mean that the Iranian leopard has changed its spots? Or is it another bit of diplomatic gamesmanship? Is the Tehran government still intent on taking advantage of what it sees as the compromising weakness of the international community?
This week, new sanctions were imposed on the country because it carried out a banned missile test in October. It is worth considering the significance of this event. It came after the signing of the Geneva deal but three months before economic sanctions were due to be lifted. It was a direct challenge to the rest of the world. To drive the point home, another missile test was conducted in December close to US and French warships sailing in international waters. The message ought to have been clear. Iran had made itself seem weak by compromising in Geneva. But here it was, just months later, once again defying the international community.
The Iranian government has nevertheless greeted with outrage the very limited sanctions that have been imposed on those associated with the banned missile testing program. As it reaches for the billions that have been unfrozen abroad, the government in Tehran is not really going to be worried about what amounts to a slap on the wrist. It has seen the weakness of the international community. It has seen its eagerness to compromise. That eagerness has empowered Tehran. It knows that it can once again indulge in the diplomatic brinkmanship at which it has become expert.
The truth is that the international community wants to believe that Iran genuinely desires to be reintegrated within it. It wants to believe that Iran is no longer a proudly pariah state. Yet a mere signature on a piece of paper in Geneva has very probably changed absolutely nothing.
In 1938, the rest of the world ought to have judged Hitler by his deeds. He had reoccupied the Saar and begun massive rearmament, both in defiance of the 1919 Versailles Treaty. He had invaded and annexed Austria.
What then is the worth of Iran’s Geneva commitment? As Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir has rightly pointed out, there have to be considerable doubts that Iran has evolved from rogue revolutionary state to respectable member of the international community. Even leaving aside its appalling track record of assassinations and terrorist sponsorship, its current behavior is abysmal.
It is succoring Hezbollah, a group damned internationally as a terrorist organization. It is supporting the Assad government in Syria, which every country except Russia regards as a vicious dictatorship that must go. It is fomenting chaos and secular discord in Iraq. It has funded and backed the Houti rebellion against the Yemeni government. And it has sponsored civil unrest here in the Kingdom and neighboring Gulf states. Is this really a government that can be trusted?
Every Saudi will join the rest of the international community in hoping that Iran really has set off on a new path. But history suggests that this is a vain hope. Moreover, Tehran’s present behavior makes clear that it is a government still bent upon regional destabilization.
Hoping something is true cannot make it true. Everything in Iran’s recent history demonstrates that its government is not to be trusted. Its leadership is bent upon regional hegemony. It seeks to persuade ordinary Iranians that they are beleagured by merciless enemies. Imagined external threats help it maintain its hold on its citizens. It is the classic ploy of all dictatorships.