President Obama stepped onto the national stage early Tuesday morning to announce a deal with Iran to stop that country’s development of nuclear capabilities – and by stop, of course, what he really meant was delay.
Among his self-congratulatory back-pats: The part where he said the accord “demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and immediate change.”
Congratulations, Mr. President. Once again, you’ve exposed the depth of your Land of Oz-like thinking. Believing in the power of the tongue to control terrorists, state sponsors of terror and all-around enemies of Israel and the West is not only sheer hubris – it’s borderline madman.
What part of the ayatollah’s mid-negotiations “Death to America” chants did you not hear?
Listeners of the early morning speech he delivered while staring directly and nearly unblinkingly into the lens of the camera – a la the “look ‘em in the eye” approach – had to know the deal was bad for America when he assured: “Today, because America negotiated from a position of strength and principle …”
But did anybody ever think that -- ever?
Just look at these headlines: From U.S. News, in November 2014: “Desperate and Dumb: The White House is Grasping at Straws to Reach a Nuclear Deal.”
From Fox News, via Charles Krauthammer, in January: “Obama’s ‘Negotiating Out of Weakness and Desperation’ With Iran.
From the Washington Post, in March: “Obama is Conceding Too Much to Iran.”
From Breitbart, in April: “Cotton: U.S. Negotiating With Iran ‘From a Position of Weakness,’ ‘Desperate for Deal.’”
From The Week, in June: “Former Top Obama, Bush Advisers Warn Against Weak Iran Nuclear Deal.”
That’s quite a list – a quick drop in the bucket of what’s out there. But you know what’s curiously missing?
Mentions and accolades of America’s negotiations with Iran from “a position of strength and principle,” except in stories quoting Obama’s claim to such.
As Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tweeted shortly after the announcement: “When willing to make a deal at any cost, this is the result. From early reports, we can see that the deal is a historic mistake.” He then tweeted: “World powers have made far-reaching concessions in all areas that were supposed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability.”
One huge hole in the deal is its appeasement quality. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton called it a pact akin to the “ill-fated Munich Agreement which sought to appease Nazi Germany.” U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the “administration just lit a fuse for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” And Iran expert Clare Lopez bluntly called the pact “sheer insanity” and a means for Iran to both fund and continue its secret pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Another frightening facet: The deal reportedly gives Iran the power to hold up inspectors from accessing sites deemed suspicious. Obama may say the plan is “not built on trust” but rather “verification,” but that’s just not true if IAEA inspectors have to wait for the all-clear from Iran in order to gain access to suspicious sites.
And one more thought to consider: What of the U.S. hostages held in Iran? While Obama cheers himself, Idaho’s Saeed Abedini, a Christian evangelical, and Amir Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, continue to rot in Iranian prisons. As Commentary opined, comparing their sad fate to those of terrorist ilk: “Obama seems more concerned with springing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay than in freeing Americans held captive by one of the world’s most repressive regimes.”
This accord would have been the perfect time to win the release of Abedini, Hekmati and other Americans held by Iran.
Position of “strength and principle?” Hardly. Position of “politics and personal agenda” is much more to the truth.