Depending upon one's priorities, the Iran nuclear agreement was the
best of deals or the worst of deals. For Arabs, Israelis and their
allies, the Iran nuclear agreement was the codification of a descent
into Iranian hegemony and nuclear blackmail. It was the apotheosis of
appeasement. For the (alleged) foreign policy elites of Western capitals
it was a way to achieve peace in our time (it didn't). And for the
Russians and the Chinese, it was a method to eventually do business with
one of the world's most evil regimes. In this week's Action Update,
we delve into the rapid series of recent events that helps put the
future of any agreement - both its details and its prospects - into
perspective.

**Iran's Demands**

On Sunday, Tehran issued seven "preconditions" for reviving the
JCPOA. These preconditions bring into stark relief two realities: the
Iranians think the Biden administration will pursue a deal at any cost,
and the Iranians are resolutely committed to terrorism, destruction of
Israel, and regional hegemony. Summed up, the conditions are as follows
(paraphrased for clarity):

* All original sanctions relief must be reinstated.

* There should be a discussion about compensating Iran for financial
losses due to President Trump's maximum pressure campaign against the
Islamic Republic.

* Iran's missile program, support for terrorism and appalling human
rights abuses are not up for negotiation.

* No other countries, including those most effected by the deal (Gulf
Arab states and, of course, Israel) can be included in the negotiations.

* Iran's aggression against the rest of the Middle East is not up for
negotiation.

* Again, no discussions of Iran's missile program.

* Israel cannot exist. No two-state solution. Rather their must be a UN
referendum on the future of all those living in the land found between
the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea.

So, in sum: pay the Iranians, let the Iranians do whatever/kill whomever
they want, enable the regime to produce the means to deliver a nuclear
weapon and then end Israel's existence. At this point, we think it's
fair to say that despite the hopes of the aforementioned foreign policy
elites, Iran has not moderated due to international engagement.

**Biden's People and Policy**

****
During his Senate confirmation hearing earlier this month, President
Biden's pick for Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, reiterated that he
would pursue a "longer and stronger" agreement with Tehran. This is
good news as it implicitly acknowledges the failures of the previous
deal which could mean that the Biden administration is not seeking to
repeat the mistakes of the past. Moreover, in another nod to not making
the same mistake twice, Blinken committed to communicating with the
Arabs and Israelis about US discussions with Iran.

Conversely, press reports indicate that the President is considering
Robert Malley to be the administration's point man on Iran. It's
hard to overstate how bad Malley is for this position - if you intend
to negotiate from a position of strength. To put it in perspective, a
non-comprehensive CUFI Action Fund synopsis of Malley's most egregious
positions and appalling quotes, runs 9 pages and nearly 3,000 words
long. We can't include it all here, but to give you a taste of just
how outside the bounds Malley's positions are, consider the following:

As far back as 2001 Malley claimed, contrary to President Clinton's
own conclusion, that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was not
responsible for failure to achieve peace between Israel and the
Palestinians (spoiler alert: he was).

In 2008, Malley noted, "I have never hidden the fact that I had
meetings with Hamas" (ICYMI: they're designated terrorists).

In 2012, Malley was quoted as declaring, "Israelis, not for the first
time, likely are exaggerating the Iranian threat and its imminence"
(newsflash: they weren't).

At a 2018 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Malley claimed,
"So, this is not a comfortable situation, but it's the reality of
Lebanon today that there is no politics without Hezbollah. There's no
equilibrium or balance of stability without Hezbollah," (sidenote:
seeing a pattern here regarding terrorists).

In 2019 Malley described the Trump administration's sanctions against
Iran this way, "At every level it is illogical, counterproductive or
useless" (fact check: totally false).

So in sum, he meets with terrorists, thinks we should accept terrorism
as just the cost of doing business, doesn't think economic sanctions
against Iran are effective, and now, the Biden administration is
considering making him the point man for negotiations with the world's
leading state sponsor of terror.

Illogical, counterproductive and useless are a rather good description
of Malley's contributions to American foreign policy in the Middle
East. There may be a worse person for this job, but you would struggle
to find them.

**Listen to your friends**

Israel and the Arab states are the ones most impacted by Iran's
actions. The Biden administration has signaled their intention to
consult these countries on any future discussions with Iran. That is the
right path. Malley's appointment is the wrong path. It would undermine
all the statements made by senior Biden officials, and the President
himself, about the need for a longer and stronger agreement.

Through their actions, statements, and "pre-conditions" to
negotiations, Iran has made clear that they remain committed to
dominating the Middle East and destroying Israel. The President should
nominate an envoy to handle Iran issues that does not hold Tehran's
tyrants in higher esteem than America's allies.

Sincerely,

CUFI Action Fund Team

SUPPORT CUFI ACTION FUND
_________________

Sent to [email protected]

Unsubscribe:
[link removed]

CUFI Action Fund, 300 Independence Ave SE, Washington, DC 20003, United States