Follow by Email

Monday, March 16, 2015

Jackson Diehl, "A deal bigger than Iran": My Query, Would Obama Have Inked a Deal With Hitler?

What are the intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Supreme Leader Khamenei regarding Israel and world Jewry? Actually, they are fairly obvious. Khamenei, in a recent tweet, called for the annihilation of Israel. Iran holds annual cartoon competitions mocking the Holocaust. Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in distant Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people. Hassan Nasrallah, who heads Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon, declared in 2002: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." And the covenant of Hamas, which is armed by Iran, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

Obama would have us ignore these declarations and the actions of Iran and its proxies, as he seeks to finalize an agreement with Iran, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations). Obama either believes, or would have us believe, that Iranian President Rouhani is a "moderate," who needs support in a purported battle with Iranian "hardliners." Do you recall Obama's "historic" 15-minute phone call to Rouhani in September 2013, while Rouhani was en route from the United Nations to the airport? Well, the Iranian poet Hashem Shaabani was subsequently hanged in January 2014 after the "moderate" Rouhani approved the death sentence.

What do I think when someone threatens to kill me? Unlike Obama, I believe him. On the other hand, it is also possible that a narcissistic Obama, who listened apathetically to the anti-Semitic harangues of the Reverend Wright for 20 years without objection, doesn't care about threats to Israel or world Jewry.

Query: Do Iranian threats to annihilate Israel apply only to Israel and the Jews? I don't think so. While campaigning for Iran's presidency, the "moderate" Rouhani declared on May 8, 2013 in the city of Karaj:

"We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."

Apparently, Obama would also discount this threat.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A deal bigger than Iran," Jackson Diehl concludes:

"The point is that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are not just about whether it will obtain a nuclear weapon; they are about the future of the Middle East. Notwithstanding the White House spin, the outcome is unlikely to lead to war in the near future. But it may determine who wins the long-term contest for influence between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf."

Diehl is wrong. First, Iran is already involved in wars throughout the Middle East: in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Moreover, the consequences of an Obama deal with Khamenei are anything but "long-term." Does Diehl honestly believe that Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will stand idly by as Iran develops an arsenal of ICBMs (such development does not even fall within the framework of the P5+1's discussions with Iran)? If Obama is responsible for inking a deal with Iran that gives the mullahs nuclear weapons within a decade, these nations will also be certain to initiate nuclear weapons development programs of their own. And if in a decade, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all have atomic weapons, I can promise you that they will be used. After all, there have been dozens of Middle East conflicts over the past several decades not even including wars involving Israel.

In the event of a Sunni/Shiite conflict, might a nuclear-tipped Iranian ICBM also fall on New York or Washington, thus speeding the coming of the Mahdi, who will will lead Shiite Muslim armies to victory over infidels in the final days? You would have to be quite naive to discount this possibility. After all, Iran is a country that stones to death women and hangs homosexuals.

Now back to the question posed in the title of this blog entry: If the year was 1938 and Obama stood in the place of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, would America's president have sought "peace for our time"? Would he have found Nazi "moderates" with whom to talk? Would he have signed a conciliatory deal with Hitler? I'm certain of it. In fact, during his 2013 second inaugural address, Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice."

The way to attain "peace in our time" is to reach out to monsters who sentence poets to death? Again, I don't think so. Instead, you stop them in their tracks while you still can.

4 comments:

  1. am still waiting for one of these 'pundits' to notice that Obama and Holder (helped by CNN and Sharpton) turned the protests in Ferguson, MO into a copy of the palestinians 'fight for social justice'? O&H seem to ONLY see their role in the world as an exercise in destroying "white privilege" no matter where...

    Theoretically that means Obama would have never "inked a deal with Hitler" because of Hitler's racism, and using American policies (and Henry Ford Sr) to justify Hitler's racial policies.

    Feel like I need to re-read John Buchan's WW1 spy thriller set in Ottoman Turkey: "Greenmantle"


    Please also note that Rev Wright's bff, Farrakhan, is again openly preaching his rants about the Jews being responsible for all of slavery, and 9/11...

    and, this WH is openly funding regime change in Israel - do you need any more clues about this mishegoss?

    k

    ReplyDelete
  2. ..."this WH is openly funding regime change in Israel" Is this true? Can anyone give some color? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a look at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/15/senate-committee-probes-whether-obama-administration-funded-effort-to-oust/

      Delete
    2. yes, I heard about this on Fox news, and was in a hyperbolic mood in using "this WH is openly funding regime change", but my real question is still WHY the USA State Department is funding this NGO for ANY reason. http://www.onevoicemovement.org/mission

      Hyperbole seems to be contagious :)

      Hopefully Israeli voters understand their election system better than American voters do...and Likud gets 1st crack at a coalition if only to foil Kerry's path to his Nobel Peace Prize.

      snark intended..


      k

      Delete