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.
No comments:
Post a Comment