Obama's Legacy, Israel's Existence

"Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. ... The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs..."
"Iran's supreme leader says [his country] plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but ten times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision."
"Why should it change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds, aggression abroad and prosperity at home?"
"This deal won't be a farewell to arms, it would be a farewell to arms control and the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear trip wires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox [by a country run by] religious zealots [pledged to] death, tyranny and the pursuit of jihad [a] grave threat [to the] peace of the entire world."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to Congress on March 3, 2015. Photo by AFP

American President Barack Obama scornfully put aside the usefulness of anything uttered by the Israeli President. In his speech to Congress, according to Mr. Obama, Mr. Netanyahu offered no alternatives, no solutions to the problem of negotiating with a theocratic state whose apocryphal vision of the future leads it to shrug off the potential for nuclear catastrophe, since after all, it would only serve to hasten the arrival of the hidden Imam, signalling the end of the world.

On the other hand the Republican majority leader in the House of Representatives, Steve Scalise felt otherwise, that the speech was "incredibly powerful", outlining "very specific problems" contained in the framework deal currently being negotiated by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany. All forty minutes of that speech contained cogent reasons why the Islamic Republic of Iran could never be trusted. Its past record of deceit more than adequate proof.

Iranian anti-aircraft guns stationed outside the Natanz nuclear facility. Photo: Wikicommons

Mr. Netanyahu cast doubt on the capacity of the United Nations to monitor Iran's nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Authority has stated time and again that it has been frustrated repeatedly by Tehran's refusal to permit its inspectors entry to the very nuclear installations it is tasked to investigate for verification of Iran's contention that it must acquire nuclear capabilities for civil use, energy and the production of medical isotopes.

There is a slight problem there, since to achieve those ends there is no need to enrich uranium, and the example of at least 17 other countries with their own nuclear programs for domestic use verify that this can be achieved without enriched uranium. Not, evidently, for Iran. Since obviously enough, those long-range ballistic missiles need something appropriate to partner with, and the only logical complement to them would be nuclear-tipped warheads.


Those negotiating with Iran have acceded to loosening of the sanctions throughout the course of the talks; a goodwill gesture. Those goodwill gestures appear to be a one-way street; Tehran has not seen the need for goodwill in any measure, and has surrendered nothing to meet the demands of the P5+1.  Under the deal, as Mr. Netanyahu noted, "not a single nuclear facility would be demolished", making possible, with its facilities intact "Iran's breakout time would be very short".

Iran has in the past violated any number of nuclear agreements. It has lied consistently about its facilities, blocking inspection efforts. The international monitoring that Barack Obama speaks of as assurances that Iran would be unable to circumvent inspections is aspirational but impractical to depend upon, since Iran has never budged from its position that the most vital installations that IAEA inspectors wish to visit have always been denied them entry.

Relying on Iran to keep its word is a mug's game. And that's the game that Barack Obama is playing, more anxious for his watered-down negotiating points to be accepted, and willing to surrender even more of the original demands to lure Iran into signing an agreement, than Iran is eager to complete the negotiations to have the sanctions finally lifted and its economy put back on track. It needs a more secure economy, not only to ease the internal strain, but to sustain its external expenses.

Those would be what it costs Iran to continue its support of Islamist terrorist groups; not the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, since Iran is primarily invested in Shi'ite death-cult martyrdom terrorists to help it expand its territorial gains. Just as Islamic State is inspiring Sunni jihadis to join its ambitiously growing caliphate, Iran is busy with its own ambitious caliphate, having absorbed Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, and now working on Bahrain.

And goodness gracious, he has had unexpected help in an unanticipated alliance, the backing of the United States of America; who might have imagined....?