National Security & Defense

Obama: Witting or Witless?

(Win McNamee/Getty)

“I was elected to end wars, not start them.” — Barack Obama

“​The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” — George Orwell

A question has hung in the air since Barack Obama first moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and began his “fundamental transformation” of this country: Did he intend harm, or was he merely so blinded by ideology that he could not see the damage his policies were creating? The Iran deal provides an answer.

At his press conference, our duplicitous leader chose to call black white and claim that the deal does the opposite of what it does — allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, albeit after a decent interval. We are deep into Orwellian territory now. “War is peace. Ignorance is strength.” Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is crowing that Iran achieved all of its objectives and the United States none.

The bombproof facility in the mountain at Fordow —​ which, until recently, the United States had demanded be shuttered and locked —​ will now have an “international presence” so that attempts to thwart its progress even by sabotage will be effectively blocked. This is permission masquerading as prevention. It’s of a piece with the administration’s pressure on Israel to refrain from military action, which was rewarded with Obama aides calling Netanyahu a “chickensh**” and crowing that his chance had passed.

Permission masquerading as prevention sums up the whole deal. The United States had demanded anytime/anywhere inspections, and negotiated to lift sanctions only after evidence of Iranian compliance. Now, the inspections regime is a joke: Iran gets 24 days’ notice and sits on the committee that decides if inspections are necessary. The sanctions are lifted immediately, handing the world’s chief sponsor of terror a $100 billion windfall. Deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes, who was captured on videotape in April saying anytime/anywhere inspections would be required, now denies that the United States ever made that a condition.

RELATED: Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran: Worse Than We Could Have Imagined

While the administration claimed it couldn’t negotiate for the release of four Americans held unlawfully in Iranian prisons because that was outside the scope of nuclear negotiations, it did agree to lift the embargo on conventional arms and intercontinental ballistic missiles, which were also outside the compass of nuclear concerns. Why? Because “Iran demanded it.” Well, okay then.

The dishonest core of the president’s pretense is this: that the choice was between war and diplomacy.

President Obama’s press conference was a spectacle of bad faith. A virtuoso of lip service (see his sympathy for Israel) and an endless conjurer of straw men, he took few questions but silkily implied that he had answered all objections. “There is no scenario in which a U.S. president is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now, if in fact Iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a nuclear weapon.”

What? In 12 to 15 years, Iran will be an immensely wealthier, better-armed, and more powerful country than it is today. It will be, to quote Obama, “a very successful regional power” and then some. It will have acquired advanced anti-aircraft weapons and ballistic missiles, and doubtless a much-improved air force.

RELATED: Iran Is Obama’s Vietnam

The dishonest core of the president’s pretense is this: that the choice was between war and diplomacy. Every schoolchild knows that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is a nullity. Obama knows how to frighten and intimidate when he wants to. See his conduct toward Republicans or Netanyahu or the Supreme Court.

#related#There was always a very different path available. He could have increased the sanctions instead of pleading with Congress not to impose them. He could have attacked Syria when it crossed his “red line,” rather than folding and thereby conveying his fecklessness to Tehran. He could have refrained from calling everyone in the United States who favored a hard line against Iran a “warmonger” — again conveying that Iran had nothing to fear from him. He could have supported the protesters in the streets in 2009 rather than signaling his support for the regime. He could have left the negotiating table many times, but especially after the IAEA reported earlier this month that Iran was in violation of earlier nuclear treaties and had increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium by 20 percent. And yes, if all of the above failed, he could have deployed strategic bombing to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

But from his first inaugural address onward, Obama both secretly and openly wooed the Iranian regime. In the process, he repeatedly lied to the Congress, our allies, and the American people, settling, to my satisfaction at least, that he is inflicting this potential catastrophe wittingly.

— Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. © 2015 Creators.com

Most Popular

Elections

Democrats Are Dumping Moderates

The activist base of the Democratic party is lurching left fast enough that everyone should pay attention. Activists matter because their turnout in low-turnout primaries and caucuses almost propelled leftist Bernie Sanders to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated New ... Read More
Culture

Questions for Al Franken

1)Al, as you were posting on social media a list of proposed questions for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, did it occur to you that your opinion on the matter is no more relevant than Harvey Weinstein’s? 2) Al, is it appropriate for a disgraced former U.S. senator to use the Twitter cognomen “U.S. ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Strzok by a Farce

An investigation is one of two things: a search for the truth, or a farce. The House is conducting a farce. That fact was on full display during ten hours of testimony by Peter Strzok, the logorrheic lawman who steered the FBI’s Clinton-emails and Trump–Russia probes. The principal question before the ... Read More
Film & TV

Stalin at the Movies

Toward the end of The Death of Stalin, two Communist Party bosses size up Joseph Stalin’s immediate successor, Georgy Malenkov. “Can we trust him?” one asks. “Can you ever really trust a weak man?” his comrade answers. Good question. Last week brought the news that the head of Shambhala ... Read More