I’ve watched the negotiations between the Obama
administration and Iran, as others, with horror. And puzzlement.
The negotiations were pointless from the outset. There was
stasis before. Sanctions prevented Iran from having the money to pursue its
nuclear goals. The Iranian people recognized it was their leadership’s
unwillingness to play nice on the world playground that was keeping them down,
so they rightly blamed them instead of us. Iran was still pursuing nuclear
weapons, but was hindered by worldwide disapproval and pressure.
What did the US have to gain from entering into negotiations?
What was so valuable that it was worth guaranteeing Iran would develop nuclear
technology—along with weapon delivery technology? At least when a similar
ridiculously bad negation led to North Korea getting nukes, it didn’t say,
“And, by the way, you’ll want these accessories in order to hit distant
targets.”
The “executive agreement” signed last week may go down in
history as the worst negotiations between nations in the history of the world. I
am not using hyperbole. (Nor am I the only one to think so: read here and here.) We went from being in the positive
position that was keeping this rogue nation from getting nuclear technology to
guaranteeing that they get it in a decade or sooner, along with capabilities to
attack not just nearby nations but the United States, with our apparent
approval.
And in exchange we got—and asked for—nothing. Not release of
Americans being held captive. Not human rights improvements. Not meaningful
inspections of nuclear technology development. In fact, rather than US
inspectors getting their own samples of uranium, they will blithely accept
samples offered to them by Iranian officials. Trust, but don’t verify.
Why?
Because this president wanted to have as a legacy a nuclear
deal with Iran. Not a deal to prevent Iranian nukes, just any random agreement
that includes discussion of Iranian nukes. And for no reason, really; it’s just
part of his bucket list. And all of us are supposed to be willing to risk our
not-too-distant-future world for the sake of his whimsical wish.
He wanted it so obsessively, he and Kerry were obviously desperate
to sign, no matter what. Iran sat back, refusing everything that was supposed
to be on the table. Death to Israel is still their policy toward our ally; that
was OK with the Obama team. Continued nuclear program. Everything. Even the
ICBMs that were thrown in at the last minute. They knew Obama and Kerry were
desperate enough to accept any terms, under any conditions. And they took
advantage. We’re lucky they didn’t think to add in, “Oh, by the way, Alaska now
belongs to Russia.”
Here’s one description, by Matthew Continetti:
If the deal favors Iran which it unequivocally does—without
so much as closing a nuclear facility, this rogue regime gets cash, legitimacy,
and an end to U.N. bans on sales of conventional weapons and ballistic missile
technology it is because Obama wanted desperately to pursue the diplomatic
option and prove its validity.
Here’s Charles Krauthammer’s reaction:
When you write a column, as did I two weeks ago, headlined
“The worst agreement in U.S. diplomatic history,” you don’t expect to revisit
the issue. We had hit bottom. Or so I thought. Then on Tuesday the final terms
of the Iranian nuclear deal were published. I was wrong.
Who would have imagined we would be giving up the
conventional-arms and ballistic-missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear
negotiations?
Victor Davis Hanson, historian and classicist, draws the
comparison to the Neville Chamberlain appeasement to Hitler. I think that is a
too-kind way of looking at this. But he points out several things we know about
appeasement, and how they are likely to play out:
·
First, appeasement always brings short-term
jubilation at the expense of long-term security…. A few years from now—after
Iran has used its negotiated breathing space to rearm, ratchet up its terrorist
operations, and eventually gain a bomb to blackmail its neighbors—the current
deal will be deeply regretted.
·
Second, the appeasement of autocrats always pulls
the rug out from under domestic reformers and idealists…. Until last week,
Iranian dissidents and reformers had blamed the theocracy for earning Iran
pariah status abroad and economic ruin at home. Not now.
·
Third, appeasers always wrongly insist that the
only alternative to their foolish concessions is war. Just the opposite is
true. Time was not on Iran’s side. Teheran was growing desperate for financial
and commercial relief from global sanctions and embargoes. In contrast, the
world had no such urgency and could have easily waited for a cash-strapped and
ostracized Iran to give up on a bomb…. Expect that in five years Iran will be
better armed, richer, more confident, more aggressive—and nearly impossible to
deter without the use of force.
·
Fourth, beneficiaries grow to hate their
appeasers…. Under the rules of appeasement, an aggressor privately has only
disdain for compromises that benefit him, and yet feels a weird sort of respect
for those who deter him. Expect an emboldened Iran to double down on its
anti-Americanism, as it brags about how a weak and decadent Great Satan meekly
caved to its demands, which will only grow greater.
·
Fifth, allies are always the big losers in
appeasement…. Our apprehensive friends and allies in the Middle East—the Gulf
states and Egypt especially—will naturally, for their own protection, expect
the same sort of nuclear deal that we accorded our enemy, Iran. America is for a while longer out of Iranian
missile range. Not so the Arab world, Israel, and perhaps southern and eastern
Europe.
·
Finally, outside observers of appeasement always
make the necessary geostrategic adjustments…. China and Russia will never again
see any advantage in joining the West in embargoing and sanctioning a would-be
nuclear state—not when such a hard-won common front can become utterly
nullified at any moment by a fickle United States. Both powers will grow closer
to Iran.
There is a very long list of things this president has done
that are detrimental to America. This is beyond Obamacare. This is beyond using
the IRS to target his political foes. This is beyond forcing nuns to pay for
employees’ abortion-inducing drugs. Although it is hard to believe we live in a
world where any of these things could happen in America, this is far worse. This is existential.
Obama calls this an “executive agreement,” rather than a
treaty, so that he can bypass Congress. Still, he had promised Congress sixty
days to go over the agreement (and disapprove with legislation which he would
veto). But he broke his word (no surprise) after just a few days and sent it on to the UN
Security Council, which approved it soundly—a clue that it’s a bad idea.
The deal is so clearly bad for America, so clearly the worst
negotiation terms ever agreed to by people with free will, but what we do not know for certain is motivation.
It is possible that Obama and cohort Kerry actually believe
America is a bad and evil actor on the world stage, and that the only way to be
fair, if we can’t deprive ourselves of nuclear weapons, is to let all the other
countries have them as well, including the "Death to America" radical enemies. It’s possible that they believe “the right side of
history” is to recognize America is in decline and the decline is to be “managed,”—which
we might have expected would mean “make the best of the bad situation” rather
than “make it so.” They might think they’re the best people to run the ship when it needs to be run into the iceberg. They have expressed things that lead to these conclusions.
Or it’s possible that Obama HATES the very basis for this country—God-given human rights to
life, liberty, property and ways of pursuing happiness. He hates the limits
written plainly in the Constitution. He hates freedom, prosperity, and civilization. He hates anything that opposes him in
whatever he wants to do for whatever reason. He wants America to fall into the
dustbin of history. And he loves the evils of force, dictatorship, tyranny in
every form—as long as he’s in power to tyrannize others.
Either he is the stupidest negotiator ever to lead a major
nation, or he is much more evil than we could have imagined. Or a combination.
Either way, he has set in motion arming radical Islamists and has facilitated
their worldwide attacks. J’accuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment