I understand those who protest that some countries have [nuclear] weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.
President Barack Obama, Address in Cairo, June 4, 2009
How many things are suicidally wrong with those statements? One, those statements come perilously close to Obama announcing that he will not use force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. If we have no right to decide who is able to get a nuclear arsenal, then obviously, in Obamaworld, we have no right to use force to stop such an eventuality. That is troubling indeed, as a nuclear armed Iran presents a danger to the West and to Israel that easily eclipses the threat from the Soviets and China during the Cold War. If you do not know why, Bernard Lewis explains it here.
Two, this is moral equivalency and multiculturalism taken to the very suicidal end of logic and into the realm of fantasy. Every nation is the equal of every other nation, end of discussion? Is there to be no discrimination based on facts and history?
Discrimination is the single most basic of survival skills. You see a snake. Do you give it a wide berth or do you ignore it and walk by. To answer that, you take a look at the shape of its head, its markings and its tail. You may not know the type of snake it is, but looking at those things will immediately tell you weather the snake is deadly or just a friendly forest critter. Bottom line, the ability to discriminate is coextensive with the ability to survive. Is this ice thick enough to hold my weight? Is that branch? Is that man friend or foe? Etc., etc.
We expect our President to be able to discriminate who is a danger to us and who is not. So is Obama capable of considering the fact that Iran is the world's central banker of terrorism? Is it impermissible for Obama consider the assessment of Sec. of Def. Gates, that "everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike?" Should Obama ignore the mad mullah's unbroken history of the committing or soliciting the most vile terrorism since 1979? Should Obama ignore that Iran's leadership has repeatedly talked of destroying Israel? In Obamaworld, all of these are apparently impermissible bases on which to discriminate between who can have a nuclear weapon and who we should prevent at all costs from attaining one. If that is true, then our chances of survival as well as Israel's just dropped precipitously.
Next, is there anyone in this world over the age of 12 who thinks that Obama's drive toward a nuclear free world is anything other than the most sophomoric of fantasies. I would expect any child, having reached the developmental stage of a 12 year old, to understand that no matter how much Obama may wish it, he cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
And indeed, a world without nuclear weapons is not a safer one. It does not mean any less will be killed in conflicts. Take a look at Japan in World War II. We killed 100,000 plus Japanese with two atomic bombs. The alternative would have been over a million combined U.S. and Japanese casualties had we not used the bombs. Two, how can we be sure that any supposed disarmament is actually bilateral and not unilateral. We would not last long in this world if the only people who had nuclear weapons hidden away were North Korea and Iran.
As to Iran itself, Obama continued his habit of serial apologetics and moral equivalency. Obama apologized to Iran for the U.S. role in a coup that occurred in 1953. He then made a moral equivalency argument, equating that bad act over half a century ago with the countless acts of terrorism and the countless number of innocent lives lost at the hands of the mad mullahs from 1979 through today. Again, Obama shows that he is unable or unwilling to discriminate or make any sort of value judgment. This is not tact, nor is it diplomacy. It is incredibly dangerous because it ignores reality. It is, in fact, weakness writ large.
Summary - Obama's Cairo Address: What We Needed, What We Got
Part 1 - Obama's Cairo Address: Hiding From The Existential Problems Of The Muslim World
Part 2 - Obama's Cairo Address: A Walk Back From Democracy & Iraq
Part 3 - Obama's Cairo Address: Obama Calls For Women's Rights While Glossing Over Discrimination & Violence
Part 4 - Obama's Cairo Address: Nukes, Iran & Weakness Writ Large
Part 5 - Obama's Cairo Address: Israel & Palestine – A Little Good, A Lot Of Outrageousness
Part 6 - Obama's Cairo Address: Islam's Tradition Of Religious Tolerance?
Part 7 - Obama's Cairo Address: The Dangerous Whitewashing Of History