Article roundup on the Iran deal
Good piece by Jonathan S. Tobin: what are Obama’s Jewish supporters to do?
In other articles on the Iran deal and its effects (particularly on Israel), see this by William Jacobson.
In contrast to many previous foreign policy initiatives (or Hamlet-like lacks thereof) under the Obama administration, Obama micromanaged the Iran deal. And I wonder what the input of Valerie Jarrett may have been, as well.
“This is a sham from beginning to end. It’s the worst deal since Munich,” Krauthammer said on Fox News “Special Report” on Monday. “It’s really hard to watch the president and the secretary of state and not think how they cannot be embarrassed by this deal.”
Krauthammer’s uncharacteristically confusing wording there “not think how they cannot be embarrassed” suggests to me how flummoxed he is by the boldness with which Obama sold Israel down the river. But this has clearly been a dream of Obama’s for a long time, telegraphed by his treatment of Netanyahu from the start. Nor does he care the least bit that the American people are not behind him, because he considers himself immune from their judgment.
Embarrassed? Hardly. In fact, the more the American people begin to desert him, the more boldly he will assert his own—opposed—agenda—without shame or hesitation. And this is true on both the foreign and the domestic front.
As with all other essential matters of human concern, it’s a great and fortunate circumstance that TheClownDisaster and his foreign policy team know better than the people and government of Israel in what Israel’s true national security interests consist. Would that Israel had the wisdom to listen to the unified aims which the ObaZma team presents for that happy country.
It’s a mini-ObamaCare.
We eeeeevil, raaaacist people told you from the *get-go* that your cherished Messiah Of Color was essentially anti-Israel, his posturing to the contrary notwithstanding.
Stew in it now.
“Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem.”
—Charles Krauthammer, April 2003
Tough times for warmongers. First the liberal humanitarian interventionists get let down on Syria and now the neocons have to face the possibility that we might not bomb Iran.
Also, posting before someone name drops “Alinsky” or some other bogeyman.
“…the more the American people begin to desert him, the more boldly he will assert his own–opposed–agenda–without shame or hesitation.”
But the more extreme he gets in pushing his agenda, the more justified the opposition looks. A few years from now, the American people may largely think that “anti-Obamaism” sounds like a good policy. (they would be correct)
So the question now becomes “what irreparable damage can Obama do in three years?”
IMO, even if Iran gets the bomb it can be reversed. It just depends on how long we want it to take, or maybe how many dead Iranian civilians we are willing to tolerate. Remember, there have been other states that gave up their WMDs when they saw the price was too high.
My answer to Matt’s question, “What irreparable damage can Obama do in three years?” is that depends on our willingness and the cost of undoing the damage. Our political history here is not encouraging. We could undo most of the damage (a nuke attack not included) but will once again lack the willingness to even attempt it. So most of the damage will go unrepaired, and the perps will go unpunished.
A nation of cowards, wusses, and half-wits.
@Don Carlos
That’s awfully pessimistic. Look at the World Trade Center; we’ve already rebuilt on that site. And not to sound too callous, but 3000 lives lost are a pinprick when compared to 330 million Americans. The main effects of that attack were the changes in government, but we did that to ourselves.
Even if NYC were vaporized (largely impossible even with nukes), America would get over it eventually. But maybe I’m an optimist.
I don’t agree with the widespread sentiment that the American people are now corrupt. I think they are now only slightly more corrupt than they’ve always been. Meaning to say, they are neither devils nor angels, but instead mostly apathetic. You can’t even call them sheep because they are largely inert.
Almost anything can be reversed as long as Democrats aren’t actively opposing us. Which would mean they need to be separated from power.
Matt_SE,
What other states have ‘given up’ nukes? Not the pursuit of nukes but given them up after they had them?
@Geoffrey Britain
South Africa voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons – although for internal reasons.
Matt_S E
“I don’t agree with the widespread sentiment that the American people are now corrupt.”
What is the threshold at which which apathy itself becomes the greater corruption? Apathy in the face of resolute corruption of our Constitution, laws, public institutions, private corporations, churches, finances, military, traditions, meanings, right down to appeasing a burgeoning death cult commencing with Roe v Wade is a greater failing than the corruptions themselves.
“A society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions, and moral values,” – Walter Williams
He wasn’t the first to note causality and won’t be the last. It’s apathy to the latter that makes the former possible. We the people are to a great degree corrupt; we have ourselves to blame; we are the primary culprits.
London Trader, thanks I’d forgotten.
“what are Obama’s Jewish supporters to do?”
This is a large question that has puzzled me for a long time. I work with a lot of Jewish faculty who toe the progressive line. My take is that for most of them being Jewish is less important than being progressive. How quickly they forget what happened 60 years ago.
I keep fantasizing that, like the black population, they will one day wake up to the evil that they support and yet works overtime against them.
Brainwashed zombies fight for the LEft. Doesn’t matter whether you call them inner city blacks or Jews. Doesn’t matter.
“or maybe how many dead Iranian civilians we are willing to tolerate.”
I am fairly tolerant and willing to tolerate many millions. That goes for the rest of the Moslem world. Sorry, no PC in my heart.
So who’s the less reliable?? . . .
Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal
“Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as ‘invalid’ and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.”
http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/
I’m shocked, shocked to learn that the administration lied yet again. Of course they lied, Obama rolled over and showed his tummy to the Iranians.
@Geoffrey Britain and London Trader
As far as I know, no countries have given up a completed nuclear program. IIRC, South Africa gave up their incomplete nuclear program. They even sold nuclear triggers to Israel, I believe.
I said WMDs.
Libya gave up their chemical weapons programs right after Iraq fell.
People who don’t get it and who don’t want to get it, will always be surprised when the LEftist boot lands on their face.
Jewish donors will continue writing checks to Obama.
As Neo and many commenters have remarked over the years, being progressive is how you think of yourself as a good, very good, evolved person superior morally and intellectually to the rest of the redneck rubes.
Giving that up is as close to impossible as makes no difference.
Selling out Israel is a small price, and considering the human capacity for rationalizing, not likely to be a “price” at all, but somebody else’s fault. Likely those damn’ stubborn Israelis.
Mix with a version of the Stockholm Syndrome.
There are ways to break people of the Stockholm Syndrome. Although most of them are violent and brutal if the person in question does not control access to their own mind and soul.
Ymar.
I think the Stockholm Syndrome–only name I could think of for the phenomenon–may not exactly apply.
What I think is that the progs know you can’t deal with Arabs. But it may be possible to deke the Israelis, who are civilized and capable of shame, or even being shamed for something they have not done, into suicide.
You deal with the side with which you can deal, morality and long-term consequences notwithstanding.
Either the Arabs knock it off or Israel suicides. Which do you think is a more likely result of trying to “fix” the situation?
But the insistence on Israeli suicide is incremental, bit by bit, piece by piece, until they no longer have the capacity to defend themselves.
I see the Left’s foreign policy in the US as merely an extension of their natural alliance with Islamic Jihad. Which has been the case since at least 2004, if not before (refer to Nation of Islam blacks and liberation theology ‘reverends’).
Obama ignored the freedom fighters in Iran, because Islamic Jihad was in power and needed room to bootstomp the dissidents. Obama supported AQ and Muslim B in Egypt, since the autocracy was not friendly with Islamos. Obama supported the insurgency in Libya with arms and shoulder fired missiles, bombing the hell out of Libya’s civilians loyal to the State. The State, Kaddafi, had made known his allegiances since Bush’s days. This is natural. Whether they want to get rid of Jews in Israel or not, is purely secondly to their responsibility to support their allies, the Left’s Islamic Jihad buddies.