Negative Consequences

This is the last of four posts on the Iran deal—at least for now. After slogging through the majority of the published text, it's readily apparent that the "deal" is no better in writing than the initial perception on the day it was announced. It is capitulation, agreed to by a president who wanted the "deal" too much. It will result in very serious problems down the road, and any argument that suggests that Iran will join the world community, renounce Islamic terrorism, and embrace its Middle East neighbors is fantasy bordering on delusion.

Peggy Noonan has unique insight when she analyzes political players and the political scene in general. Here's what she sees when she considers Barack Obama, the negotiator, with an eye toward the Iran "deal."

Mr. Obama is an odd one in that when there are rivals close by, in Congress for instance, with whom he could negotiate deals, he disses them in public, attacks their motives, yanks them around with executive orders, crushes them when possible. But when negotiating with actual tyrants he signals deference, hunger. I leave it to others to explain what it means when a man is bullying toward essentially good people and supplicating toward bad ones. But the sense is he always wants it too much and is consequently a poor negotiator, and this will have some impact on U.S. and world reaction.

Never in my life time have I witnessed a president—Republican or Democrat—who demonizes his opposition to the extent that Barack Obama does. Never in my lifetime have I seen a president—Republican or Democrat—abandon (and in some cases, vilify) allies to the extent that Barack Obama does. As Noonan implies, he is the worst kind of bully—attacking those who are good men and women but legitimately opposed to his positions, and deferential (or afraid) of thugs who mean this country and our allies serious harm. The negative consequences of his election and re-election will haunt our nation for many, many years.