07/08/2010

President Jimmy Obama's Nuclear Iran

By Joel Gilbert

The loud "thud" heard in Washington last week was President Obama's signing of the Iran sanctions bill, ending the Obama administration's efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. And in a pathetic moment of agreement with Iran, both CIA Director Leon Panetta and President Ahmadinejad immediately declared that the sanctions wouldn't stop Iran's quest to become a nuclear power. How did we get to this point?

Carter didn't understand the movement of Islamism was the only serious alternative form of government in the Islamic world. Unfortunately, the rest is history.

Thirty years apart, two American Presidents, Carter and Obama, are tragic bookends of a massive failure in U.S-Iran policy. Now joining British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain - whose tango with Adolph Hitler at Munich in 1938 laid open Europe for the Nazis - in infamy are U.S. Presidents Carter and Obama. They are united with Chamberlain as poster children of appeasement and political naiveté in the modern era. How ironic that the last two American Presidents to receive the Nobel Peace Prize are the two greatest contributors to a likely coming region wide Middle East war that may evolve into World War III? Carter and Obama have even more in common. Both are self-appointed representatives of a higher morality, Carter fixating on "human rights," while Obama offers a simplistic doctrine of direct talks and "shared values" with Iran. Carter and Obama also believe the concept of non-intervention in Iran's internal affairs trumps America's security interests, their sworn oath to protect and defend the United States cast aside for lofty ideals that led to the oppression of millions and the deaths of thousands.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter withdrew U.S. support from staunch American ally, the Shah of Iran, believing the downfall of the autocrat would result in a Western secular democracy in Iran. Within days, President Carter's "human rights" policy backfired as Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist forces seized power. Hundreds of executions of the Islamist regime's political opponents ensued, the "human rights" of the dead obviously violated. Carter didn't understand the movement of Islamism was the only serious alternative form of government in the Islamic world. Unfortunately, the rest is history.

President Barack Obama's Iran policyis equal to Carter's in its naiveté. Obama committed himself in advance to "diplomacy only" with Iran as a means to achieve nuclear compromise, stating so in an address directly to the Iranian people upon taking office. Obama declared to the Iranians that "once people start speaking, their differences disappear" as they realize their "shared values" and "common aspirations." Like Carter before him, Obama's assessment was fatally flawed - Islamic values and goals are in fact decidedly different from and mostly incompatible with Western secular society.

Will Obama consider a military option at this late stage? A cornerstone of President Obama's foreign policy priority is to mend and foster relations with the Islamic world. To that end, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being concluded, Gitmo is being closed, and the U.S. will soon withdraw its forces from the Middle East region. Meanwhile, contacts with rogue states like Syria are being pursued, while U.S. ally Israel is squeezed diplomatically, and weapons systems purchases by Israel have been suspended. Taking on Iran militarily to stop its nuclear program simply does not enter the equation for President Obama, as it would reverse his entire agenda for U.S. endearment to the Muslim world.

The Iranians are no fools, they accepted Obama's non-interference pledge, crushed internal opposition, and set preconditions for Obama to talk to them! Ahmadinejad demanded complete removal of U.S. forces from the Middle East and withdrawal of U.S. support for Israel and secular Arab allies in the Muslim world like Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States - the very same demands made by Al Qaeda.

Ahmadinejad has made it clear that nuclear technology for Iran is an important step on the path to Iran becoming "an invincible global power." Given Iran's Islamist agenda, this can only mean that Iran will use its nuclear capabilities to shape the world. U.S. withdrawal from the region and abandonment of its allies would quickly pave the way for Iran and its Islamist proxies to take power across the Middle East. This would set the stage for the removal of Jewish sovereignty - the State of Israel – from the region, followed by an effort to neutralize American allies in Europe and the isolation of America itself.

Iran's Islamist revolution was born with, and to this day maintains the purpose "Death to America." This is not a comical slogan, but their raison d'être. There is not a shred of evidence that Iran would suddenly change its agenda once it acquires the means to achieve its goals. President Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations last September was nothing less than a declaration of war against America. He highlighted a familiar message: Islamic civilization is morally superior and destined to ultimate success, while America is a corrupt, immoral and godless society whose core values of liberalism and capitalism are the source of all oppression, wars, and poverty in the world. Ahmadinejad maintained the Islamic world is ordained by God and His messengers to fight for equality, justice and fraternity while making it clear that America must be destroyed for humanity to find salvation.

Neville Chamberlain's naïveté and appeasement policies toward Hitler helped facilitate a World War that led to 60 million deaths. The complete failure of U.S.-Iran policy rests in the bookends of the Jimmy Carter-Barack Obama presidencies. How many lives will be sacrificed on the altar of misguided morality of simpletons occupying the White House? Et tu, President Jimmy Obama?