Home Guest Columns President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran

President Obama Must Not Complete aDisastrous Deal With Iran

Steve Emerson April 3, 2015 No comments | Printer Friendly

1

4

LikeLike

From Steven Emerson, Executive Director of theIPT:

To our readers: I felt that the commentary below whichran Tuesday in The Observer encapsulated the essence ofwhat may ultimately become the most dangerous dealsince the appeasement of Hitler in 1939. Given the suddenflurry of contradictory and get-tough statements made inthe last 36 hours, no one can be 100 percent certain that afinal deal will be made.

On the other hand, as the editorial points out, PresidentObamas obsession with negotiating an agreement withIran has resulted in his making such irreversible

SEARCH

Get our free daily email!

Email Address :

SUBSCRIBE

For purchase:

The Obama Years: Beyond the Haloby AIM Editors and Other Writers

Available on the site:

Hizballah: Irans Other Looming Threat to theWest by Clare Lopez

Grand Theft Obama: The Biggest Heist inU.S. History by James Simpson

Ft. Hood Killer Admits He Committed Act ofTerrorism by Roger Aronoff

Analyst Says Anti-NSA Campaign BenefitsAmericas Enemies by Cliff Kincaid

Police Militarization, Abuses of Power, and

ABOUT JOIN DONATE WORK AT AIM CONTACT

Home Articles Blogs Audio & Video Press Room Citizens Commission on Benghazi AIM Store

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

concessions that Iran will find it impossible to refuse tocome to terms. Yet it is those very concessions that lie at the heart ofthe matter. Because the president seem blind to the collateral damage ofsuch a deal that would threaten the very survival of Israel and the verysecurity of the West itself.

The following originally was published Tuesday by the Observer:

With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the cripplingeconomic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees that Iran will limitits nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the Observer urges President Obama notto place his personal hunger for a legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty protecting Americas national security.

Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain ,who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlainacted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain wasnot thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that heloved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He wasdealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whosebest and brightest five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oaththat they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materiallyunprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from aposition of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations,even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the Britishleader to attend them.

In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. Hebelieves he is replicating President Richard Nixons historic opening of China. ForMr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr.Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctionshave hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Irans vulnerability. Instead of usingthe sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr.Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. Itwould be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need forgenerating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb.

Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any suchagreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant atFordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase publicdisplays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in themidst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, Death toAmerica.

If Chamberlain possessed Americas strength and was dealing with Iransweakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concernedabout a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building abomb at Fordo?

Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial portfolios. Hewas considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member. Upon becoming PrimeMinister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed Chamberlain to the new WarCabinet.

History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he isstereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness againsta foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of

the Road to Impeachment by James Simpson

The Gang of Eight and Immigration Reform:Bordering on a National Security Nightmareby Michael Cutler

Marylands Endemic Corruption: An ObjectLesson for the Nation by James Simpson

Terrorist Professor Bill Ayers and ObamasFederal School Curriculum by Mary Grabar

Browse the other CIJ Special Reports

AIM on Twitter and Facebook

Accuracy in Media

10,133 people like Accuracy in Media.

Facebook social plugin

LikeLike

Special Report

Accuracy In Media Inc

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filletedChamberlain with his famous choice between war and dishonor and now will getboth zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept hisvanquished predecessor in his War cabinet.

It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill inthis chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain wouldnot have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager toconclude.

Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and isincapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surroundedby sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant anduncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after countryin the worlds most dangerous region fall into chaos-Libya and Yemen areessentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve-Mr. Obamapuzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusingto accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an electionthat, by the way, added three additional seats to the countrys Arab minority.

We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obamas hastywithdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filledby the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines andwhom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State.

In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirtyyears kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally.Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing torealize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy.

In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, hadreversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community ofnations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship thatwas willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Itsrevolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies hadabated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not onlyverbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them.Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot housefor Islamic extremism.

The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among ourtraditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because itadvances Irans nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Irans supportfor the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Irans adventurism in Iraq. The liftingof sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxieslike Lebanons Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanons democratic aspirations. Thenuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the GulfState Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrousproliferation in the region.

The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the worldslargest exporter of terrorism- the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias inYemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina.Regrettably, a nave, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of hislegacy and nothing will stand in his way.

Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israels nuclear

Al Jazeera Hates the Post-CharlieHebdo Unity

GOP needs 4 Votes to Pass Veto-ProofKeystone XL Bill

South Korean President Urges NorthKorea to Stop Delaying Talks

France Mobilizes up to 10,000 toProtect Sites

Pakistani School where TalibanMassacred 130 Children has Reopened

No American Dignitary Showed up toPro-France Rally in Paris

President Obama Must Not Complete aDisastrous Deal With Iran

Veterans Affairs Director Mislead GOPSenator on Contaminated Drugs

United Nations says 25,000 Plus Foreignersare Fighting with ISIS in Middle East

Indiana Set to Pass Anti-Discrimination Lawafter Media Outcry and Lies about RFR