Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Iran & Watching History Repeat Itself (Updated)

The last time the "Peace In Our Time" bit of history played out in 1938, over 50 million people were killed in the aftermath and entire economies destroyed for decades. The only acceptable deal with Iran leaves them without a nuclear program. Period. Anything less is suicidal. And if such a deal is not possible, than we strangle their economy and hope that does the trick before military force is required. Yet it seems the Obama administration is dead set on a deal with the mad mad mullahs at any cost.

Iran has been at war with the U.S. and U.S. interests since 1979. They are the single most destabilizing influence in the world, and particularly in the Middle East, where they are the world's foremost proponent and supporter of terrorism. The mad mullahs are every bit as bloody and expansionist as Hitler and Nazi Germany. Given that WMD's are at stake and not conventional weapons, to make a deal with the mad mullahs that would allow them to continue their nuclear weapons program is far more dangerous and irrational than the deal Chamberlain hammered out with Hitler in 1938 to, famously, insure "peace in our time."

Obama is leading the world to Armageddon. Why, I cannot begin to fathom, but there is no doubting at this point that the more a nation is opposed to U.S., the greater the danger a nation poses to the U.S. and its allies, the more Obama is willing to deal with it irrespective of the cost to our national security. And it is truly the world turned upside down when the only adults in the room protecting the interests of the free world are the French.

This from Thomas Sowell's recent article, Etiquette Versus Annihilation:

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?

The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?

It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.

Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.

Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.

Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate? . . .

From the Washington Policy Institute, a fact sheet on Iran's time to a nuclear breakout.

No comments: