The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015


Over the past six and a half years, we've observed the following:
  • a president who has consistently misled the American public about the benefits and projected outcomes of his policy initiatives
  • an administration that has consistently made the wrong decisions with regard to the Middle East, allowing the region to go from bad to chaotically unstable and dangerous
  • a past Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton) and the current Secretary of State (John Kerry) who have consistently backed the wrong regional players, made the wrong choices, and ultimately done far more harm than good throughout the Middle East
  • allies who have been spurned and sworn enemies who have been embraced
  • "red lines" that have been crossed with no consequences
  • a series of foreign policy scandals (Benghazi comes to mind) that, if nothing else, indicate that decisions in this realm are motivated more by ideology and domestic politics than by what is in the best interests of the United States
In summary, we have observed a president and his Team of 2s fail to achieve a single legitimate foreign policy accomplishment that will lead to a better word.

And now, we have an "historic" deal with Iran, not an enforceable (maybe) treaty, mind you, but a "deal" with the single most duplicitous, venemous, and hegemonic entity in the Middle East. We're told it's enforceable. We're told it a good thing. We're told it's "historic."

What could go wrong?


The first dissenting opinions on this "historic" deal have already begun to pour in. Newt Gingrich (certainly no friend of the Obama Administration) suggests that Obama's deal is a "surrender" to Iran and writes:
An American surrender to Iran in the nuclear talks will have four immediate and devastating consequences.

First, as much as $150 billion in money impounded by the sanctions will be released. The regime’s history teaches us that a substantial portion of this will go to fund terrorism and military action around the world. By focusing on the nuclear program and ignoring the program of terrorism and aggression, the Obama administration is on the verge of vastly increasing the resources Iran has to use against the United States and its allies.

Second, once the sanctions are gone, the Iranians will sign very profitable contracts with German, Russian and Chinese firms. The pressure against reinstating the sanctions will be overwhelming (and two of the three countries have vetoes in the U.N. Security Council).

Third, the Iranian nuclear program will be “approved” by the international community and will accelerate. If North Korea is any example, once these negotiations conclude, the Iranians will go full-speed ahead. Inspectors will be delayed, obstructed, lied to and will pathetically whine about Iranian noncompliance. It is clear this agreement guarantees an eventual Iranian bomb. And “eventual” may be a lot sooner than we think.

Fourth, signing an agreement as a co-equal with the United States, Russia, China and the Europeans will drastically increase the prestige of the Iranian dictatorship. That enhanced prestige will be translated into an already-aggressive regime bullying its neighbors even more.

Mr. Obama will argue that the choice is a bad agreement or war.

He misunderstands the current reality.

We are already at war with Iran.

They are winning.

This deal hands them a victory while continuing our [actually, Obama's] fantasy.
There are many things that trouble me about the Obama administration, but one of the most disturbing is the clear indication that, like the vast majority of Leftists, Obama and his followers are perfectly will to base major policy decisions on a fantasy view of the world—the threats we face, the consequences of our actions, and the true nature of our enemies (or for that matter, who are enemies actually are). Recall the aphorism—when fantasy and reality collide, reality always wins in the end. The problem is that a lot of irreparable damage can be done before reality has it day. 


And this comment from Richard Fernandez is well-worth pondering:
Almost no one in the foreign policy establishment can articulate a reason for this deal other than to assert that a “bad agreement is worse than no agreement” without shedding the slightest light on what this doohickey actually does. The president’s ultimate goal, his secret strategic objective remain as obscure and impenetrable as ever. The president’s admirers, balked at an explanation, are likely to seek refuge in political faith, in the belief that Obama is so much smarter than the rest of us and especially them, that we unlike him, cannot see so many moves ahead.

“It’s going to be wonderful!” they assert. Somehow.

The alternative of course is to entertain the possibility that Obama’s no smarter — and probably less smart — than Merkel, Tsipras, Hollande and Juncker who have proved embarrassingly foolish and that’s he just making a hash of everything as usual, in the same way OMB made a shambles of personnel records, and the VA of veteran’s care. Common sense suggests that Obama is as likely to succeed in this as he has succeeded in the past. To imagine that he will be abnormally excellent in this single nuclear deal, performing 3 or 4 standard deviations over his batting average, is really to wager on the improbable.
[Emphasis mine]
But this we know. Iran will have the bomb. Nonproliferation is slowly dying if it is not dead. But at least Obama’s Legacy — whatever he thinks it is — lives.