Don’t forget Iran: Obama must keep eye on multiple balls

New York Post

Be careful not to make the coalition against the Islamic State too wide.

President Obama’s speech at the United Nations on Wednesday is a good opportunity for a policy “reset,” which in fact has already started with Monday night’s much-needed air attack in Syria.

(Wow: The president who promised an end to wars is launching one.)

But let’s not, in the process of fighting ISIS, hand the Mideast over to Iran.

We’re dancing dangerously close to outright allowing the rising Shiite powerhouse to become a military nuclear state — and that can’t be good.

There’s a general unease in the region about America springing to action whenever Sunni extremists, like ISIS, commit horrific acts, while ignoring similar acts by Shiites — as in Iran’s bloodbath during the 2009 Green Revolution, or the atrocities its ally Syria commits.

For that reason, Obama wisely highlights the participation (however scant) of five leading Sunni countries in Monday’s air attacks against ISIS and al Qaeda targets in Syria.

Similarly, to ease such concerns, Secretary of State John Kerry wisely banned Shiite Iran from participating in a recent Paris conference as he started building the anti-ISIS coalition.

Oops: Last Friday, during a followup to the Paris parlay at the UN Security Council, Kerry said that in the coalition, “There’s a role for nearly every country in the world to play, including Iran, whose foreign minister is here with us today.”

Actually he wasn’t: that was Foreign Minister Javaz Zarif’s deputy, Abbas Araghchi.

But it was Kerry’s assignment of a “role” for Iran that made every ear in the room perk up.

Maybe Zarif was busy at one of those hush-hush meetings on Iran’s nuclear program that take place daily in the belly of the UN building and at surrounding embassies.

Although fighting the Islamic State’s Sunni terrorists is an Iranian strategic imperative, Tehran wants to trade concessions on the nuclear front for engaging in the fight against ISIS.

If we give on that front, the result could be much more significant to the future of the Mideast than all the hoopla of this week’s General Assembly gabfest.

According to reports, Western negotiators, led by Kerry, came up with a new plan: Instead of dismantling the vast majority of Iran’s 19,000 centrifuges, as we’ve long demanded, why not dismantle the pipes that transfer uranium among the centrifuges in the enrichment process?

That way, goes the rationale, Iran’s path to the bomb gets longer, but its negotiators can “save face” as they stick by their steadfast refusal to actually dismantle centrifuges.

The administration officials who leaked the story to The New York Times also claim that Obama’s been assured by nuclear experts that if the mullahs agree to this idea, he “could accurately claim” that Iran’s breakthrough time has been significantly pushed back.

But other experts note that it would be pretty easy to reconnect the centrifuges (whereas rebuilding dismantled ones is a much bigger chore). So the “accurate claim” might not end up all that accurate.

More important, Tehran isn’t interested in “saving face.” It has invested time and money, and suffered under international sanctions, to become a nuclear power and the Mideast hegemon that the mullahs claim Allah has designated it to be.

Typically, Tehran politely rejected the latest Western proposal on Tuesday. But it’s a safe bet they’ll use it as the starting point of future negotiations, while demanding still more Western concessions.

The Obama administration is eager to strike a nuclear deal before the latest deadline, Nov. 24. If the public meeting planned for Friday between Zarif, Kerry and other foreign ministers goes ahead, we’ll know there’s movement toward “compromise” — i.e., further Western capitulation.

But Sunni powers won’t just roll over and let Tehran dominate the region. (And no matter that the Iranian and Saudi foreign ministers met here this week.) They, too, will likely seek nukes — an arms race from hell.

Despite denials all around, all signs are that Washington is ready to further ease up on Iran’s nuclear program, if only to win against ISIS.

In his speech, and as he presides over a Security Council session Wednesday, Obama will rightly hail his newfound footing in the fight against jihadi terrorists. But he must also address fears about Iran.

If he doesn’t, the gains we make by fighting Sunni terrorists will be offset by the longterm menace posed by a fanatic, nuclear-armed Shiite power.