Obama: Witting or Witless?

 

obamairanI was elected to end wars, not start them. – Barack Obama

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. – George Orwell

 A question has hung in the air since Barack Obama first moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and began his “fundamental transformation” of this country: Did he intend harm or was he merely so blinded by ideology that he could not see the damage his policies were creating? The Iran deal provides an answer.

At his press conference, our duplicitous leader chose to call black white, and claim that the deal does the opposite of what it does – allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, albeit after a decent interval. We are deep into Orwellian territory now. “War is peace. Ignorance is strength.” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is crowing that Iran achieved all of its objectives and the U.S. none.

The bombproof facility in the mountain at Fordow – which, until recently, the US had demanded be shuttered and locked — will now have an “international presence” so that attempts to thwart its progress even by sabotage will be effectively blocked. This is permission masquerading as prevention. It’s of a piece with the Administration’s pressure on Israel to refrain from military action, which was rewarded with Obama aides calling Netanyahu a “chicken….” and crowing that his chance had passed.

Permission masquerading as prevention sums up the whole deal. The U.S. had demanded anywhere/anytime inspections, and negotiated to lift sanctions only after evidence of Iranian compliance. Now, the inspections regime is a joke: Iran gets 24 days’ notice and sits on the committee that decides if inspections are necessary. The sanctions are lifted immediately, handing the world’s chief sponsor of terror a $100 billion windfall. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who was captured on videotape in April saying anytime/anywhere inspections would be required, now denies that the U.S. ever made that a condition.

While the Administration claimed it couldn’t negotiate for the release of four Americans held unlawfully in Iranian prisons because that was outside the scope of nuclear negotiations, they did agree to lift the embargo on conventional arms and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which were also outside the compass of nuclear concerns. Why? Because “Iran demanded it.” Well, ok then.

President Obama’s press conference was a spectacle of bad faith. A virtuoso of lip service (see his sympathy for Israel) and endless conjurer of straw men, he took few questions but silkily implied that he had answered all objections. “There is no scenario in which a U.S. president is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now, if in fact Iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon.”

What? In 12 to 15 years, Iran will be an immensely wealthier, better-armed, and more powerful country than it is today. It will be, to quote Mr. Obama, “a very successful regional power” and then some. It will have acquired advanced anti-aircraft weapons and ballistic missiles, and doubtless a much-improved air force.

The dishonest core of the president’s pretense is this: that the choice was between war and diplomacy. Every school child knows that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is a nullity. Obama knows how to frighten and intimidate when he wants to. See his conduct toward Republicans or Netanyahu or the Supreme Court.

There was always a very different path available. He could have increased the sanctions instead of pleading with Congress not to impose them. He could have attacked Syria when it crossed his “red line” rather than folding and thereby conveying his fecklessness to Tehran. He could have refrained from calling everyone in the U.S. who favored a hardline against Iran a “warmonger” – again conveying that Iran had nothing to fear from him. He could have supported the protesters in the streets in 2009 rather than signaling his support for the regime. He could have left the negotiating table many times, but especially after the IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran was in violation of earlier nuclear treaties and had increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium by 20 percent. And yes, if all of the above failed, he could have deployed strategic bombing to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

But from his first inaugural address onward, Obama both secretly and openly wooed the Iranian regime. In the process, he repeatedly lied to the Congress, our allies, and the American people, settling, to my satisfaction at least, that he is inflicting this potential catastrophe wittingly.

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 32 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Seawriter:The answer is obvious. Obama is so busy going after his goals he does not see the unintended (and negative) consequences his actions. That makes him half-witting.

    Seawriter

    Sorry my friend, you give too much credit.  There are no unintended, negative consequences.  He is not on our side.  His goals are to reduce America, to break our traditions, to turn us into a socialist workers’ state.  Every action he takes is oriented to this goal.  If you do not see this, the “half-witting” label is your own.

    • #31
  2. user_278007 Inactive
    user_278007
    @RichardFulmer

    This all seems eerily reminiscent of the Yalta agreement, which left so many eastern European countries to Stalin’s tender mercies.  Though the right of self-determination for all countries was U.S. policy, after Yalta FDR airily claimed that, given the choice, the countries in question would all want to become part of the USSR anyway.

    FDR had something of a soft spot in his heart for the Soviets because, he said, at least they were not imperialists – unlike the Brits.  Obama seems to share FDR’s distain for colonial powers as well as his very selective definition of what constitutes colonialism.

    • #32
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.