Obama, Iran, and The Lessons of History

[PoliticalChic]

Attributed to that quintessential American, Mark Twain, "
“History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”



There is no more appropriate time to mull that over than now, when a President well-known for both international policy weakness, and a long rap-sheet of mistakes and gaffes, claims to have snookered the Iranians in nuclear deal.....

But...:"Obama hails 'historic' agreement as Iranians celebrate"
Iran nuclear talks Obama hails historic agreement as Iranians celebrate live updates World news The Guardian





Let's take a look at the results of the efforts of another weak leader......

1. "....Obama’s vow to seek support in Congress for his proposed deal with Iran reminds us of the Norway Debate. This is the argument that erupted in the Mother of Parliaments in May 1940, after the Nazis invaded Norway. When the debate began, the architect of the Munich appeasement, Neville Chamberlain, was still prime minister.

2. ...what is about to take place will be no ordinary debate, either. This is going to be a test of the constitutional balance of power over foreign policy. It would be hard to overstate what hangs in the balance.

3. For Mr. Obama proposes that Congress enter a contract with a regime in Iran that Congress knows has lied to us, that has failed to abide by past agreements, and that can be counted on to violate the agreement the President wants to sign....

4. The president dast not even vouch for Iran’s integrity. He merely challenges the Congress to come up with a better idea. That is rank burden-shifting.



5. Let Congress return the burden to the President. Let it challenge the president’s claim that a negotiated agreement “is our best option by far,” or what the New York Times calls “unquestionably the best approach.” Such talk reminds us of Geoffrey Dawson, who was editor of the London Times in the 1930s and the journalistic apostle of Britain’s appeasement of Hitler; Dawson called the Nazi peace offer “the best immediate hope.”

6. Like Munich, the pact Mr. Obama has just proposed was too much wanted. It’s a classic condition of appeasement. No wonder the Iranians are literally dancing in their streets. It’s a sentiment that is shared nowhere outside of Iran save for the Nobel Prize Committee,....



7. .... what Mr. Obama proposes underscores our main point — that the parley itself is the appeasement. The very fact that these talks were taking place has aggrandized our adversary, cost us time, and — by betraying our closest (and only democratic) ally, Israel — courted “war with dishonor,”....

8. It will be up to Congress to choose the shape of things to come (which was the title of H.G. Wells’ 1933 novel predicting World War II).

9. [Congress] wrote the sanctions that Mr. Obama proposes to dismantle. The Speaker has been making his own swing through the Middle East. He knows that it is Congress that was granted the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.



10. The President proposed. Now let Congress dispose."
The Shape of Things to Come - The New York Sun

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's take some time to mullah that over.

 

[DGS49]

Sometimes you have to cut through all the crap and get down to basics. The Iranians have no legitimate reason to pursue any technology surrounding nuclear fission, whether it be nuclear power, bombs, or medicine. They are sitting on an ocean of oil, and don't give a rat's ass about their carbon footprint. The ONLY reason for any of this activity is planned nuclear aggression.

Iran intends - as a matter of national policy - to annihilate Israel and the U.S. This is repeated DAILY by Iranian school children.

Mutually Assured Destruction - the principle that ensured that the Cold War would never go "hot" - does not apply to Iran, as a potential nuclear power. The late Ayatollah Khomeni wisely noted many years ago that a nuclear strike could destroy Israel, while a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran would merely harm Iran, and that harm would be tolerable. And even that assumes that the U.S. president would have the balls to do it, which is doubtful in the extreme, especially if it is a Democrat.

Iran must never get a Bomb. Any "agreement" that envisions that - even in the distant future - is unacceptable, totally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sometimes you have to cut through all the crap and get down to basics. The Iranians have no legitimate reason to pursue any technology surrounding nuclear fission, whether it be nuclear power, bombs, or medicine. They are sitting on an ocean of oil, and don't give a rat's ass about their carbon footprint. The ONLY reason for any of this activity is planned nuclear aggression.

Iran intends - as a matter of national policy - to annihilate Israel and the U.S. This is repeated DAILY by Iranian school children.

Mutually Assured Destruction - the principle that ensured that the Cold War would never go "hot" - does not apply to Iran, as a potential nuclear power. The late Ayatollah Khomeni wisely noted many years ago that a nuclear strike could destroy Israel, while a retaliatory nuclear strike against Iran would merely harm Iran, and that harm would be tolerable. And even that assumes that the U.S. president would have the balls to do it, which is doubtful in the extreme, especially if it is a Democrat.

Iran must never get a Bomb. Any "agreement" that envisions that - even in the distant future - is unacceptable, totally.

You betcha'!

And Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him) is right there witcha'....

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:

June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."

June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."

February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."

January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."

May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."

March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.

March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_print.html

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon The Atlantic



I favor giving Obama the 'Lie of The Year' award in perpetuity!
The guy has certainly worked for it!