What causes the power of a State to grow? What encourages free men and women to allow Leviathan to enlarge without complaint?
Post-9/11 Americans find themselves having willingly (and often unknowingly) reduced our liberty in ways unimaginable to our parents or to any previous generation of Americans. Tapping our phones. Spying on our cars. Radar that can see through the walls of our homes. Travel bans.
Try even to imagine a Washington, a JFK or a Reagan even thinking of this. Yet now we hear it from both parties.
With the new information regarding Iran’s development of an ICBM – that’s Inter-CONTINENTAL- Ballistic-Missile, one putting America within range – and Obama’s absolute rejection of forestalling Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, even to the point of publicly threatening to veto a common-sense, bipartisan, sanctions bill presented by the – Democrat – Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), it occurs that, perhaps we have been thinking too small regarding Obama’s threat.
The West used to consider Ahmadinejad, the now-former president of Iran as a nutjob with all his shouting about the catastrophe necessary to enable the return of the 12th imam, and that this catastrophe could be initiated by man. This is not Tea party hallucination. The Leftist Huffington Post: “The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is looking to acquire nuclear weapons for more than political purposes; he believes in a radical religious End Times prophecy.”
But look at the threat of an Iranian nuke another way.
Is Obama bent on enabling an Iranian nuke? Of course. No other logical explanation exists for his actions, especially for his evident anger about a bipartisan, national security sanctions bill, or his unilateral loosening of precious sanctions on Iran placed by Congress and by the European Community and Russia. Or what evidently is his strategy as reported in detail here, arguably the best column yet on Obama’s actions and goals regarding the Middle East and South Asia.
Will Iran nuke America? No, for several reasons:
- Persian Shia hate Arab Sunni far more than they hate the West, even The Great Satan
- The value of showing a nuke but not acting with it has been shown for a generation by North Korea; if Iran can blackmail the US taxpayer for money, food, energy – especially with oil tanking, the possession is more important than the use, to say nothing of the invulnerability a nuclear arsenal provides to a small State.
- Even with Obama as CINC, it is highly probable – though certainly not ensured – that a nuclear attack on the US would be met with a nuclear response.
- No economic or political upside.
And those in America worried publicly about an Iranian attack are playing into Obama’s hands. It won’t happen. But an attack is not the danger.
Will Iran nuke Israel? No.
- Israel will nuke-back, arguably more thoroughly than would America, whose Baby Boomer ‘leaders’ remain under the post-war fantasy that just because we can obliterate any enemy, every enemy will refrain from serious military involvement with America (which has always been proven wrong, but American politicians evidently cannot learn from experience, as blinded by egotistical arrogance, mono-cultural tunnel vision and ignorance as they are.)
- The Saudis would never countenance a Shia Persia as regional hegemon, even with a smoking Jerusalem. This is why they already have offered a flight corridor to Israel for an attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Saudis would buy a nuke from Pakistan – immediately, and use it on Iran – immediately. A Persian Shia nuke detonation in the region would initiate an immediate arms race and immediate responses. There would be no nuclear arsenal building; there would be nuclear arsenal using. Deterrence is a european concept, not an Islamic one. It is a post-Enlightenment concept, not a pre-Enlightenment one. As are the Geneva conventions, it is not applicable to pre-modern barbarian savages – which is what political islam is all about. These people walk their own children across known minefields to make the journey safe for a soldier; deterrence is the idea that one’s people are too important to be sacrificed over some land. Deterrence doesn’t apply to pre-modern ideologies, which is what political islam/sharia is. MAD, or “Mutually Assured Destruction” is not in-play when the “End Times” can be initiated by manmade catastrophe; true believers (the danger of Ahmadinejad) will happily destroy the entire world for the return of the 12th imam.
- If Iran even tested a nuke, Israel would annihilate their ability to produce or deliver one. (This is why Iran’s first detonation will be over a target, perhaps DC, perhaps Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, but likely Riyadh.) Iran knows this. (This presents the First Strike conundrum, of course: given the disdain with which Israel is – illegitimately – held on many, and growing, parts of the world: Can Israel pre-emptively nuke Iran (no other weapon can reach Iran’s underground nuke facilities) … and survive? Or will the uproar for self-defense be such that Israel will achieve – at best – a pyric victory? (Would I put an American retaliatory attack on Israel past Obama? No.)
- No economic upside, and limited regional hegemonic political upside that the Saudis immediately would begin working to destroy.
If Iran won’t nuke America and won’t nuke Israel, what is the point of their weapons development, and what is the point of Obama refusing to slow or halt it?
DPRK proves the monetary and nation-state value of a poor state blackmailing America: There is no downside, and the upside is the continuation in power of those who are doing the blackmailing providing their subjects with food, energy, etc.
The people die, the economy dies, individual rights die, Liberty dies. Those in power stay in ever-greater power.
This is the goal of all Leftists, and Obama is one such.
Obama told us he would be “fundamentally transforming the United States of America;” did people really think he meant other than away from liberty and toward totalitarianism? What other “fundamental” transformation exists for a free people?
Obama told us our Constitution – the document that created the freest, wealthiest, most powerful nation in history – had “deep flaws.” Did you think that meant he was going to obey it rather than ignore it, as he has done?
Everything in his background argues toward totalitarianism.
But – what’s in it for Obama? How does he gain from a nuclear Iran?
A nuclear Iran WILL BE an enormous national security threat to America. Americans, if WW2 and post-9/11 behaviors are any indication, will accept further, even more massive assaults on our liberties and freedoms in the face of the threat of a nuclear Iran. What is a better, more serious threat?
This is Obama’s goal; it always has been. Citizens becoming subjects: His subjects.
Why do you think he has made gun control so central a platform, but to remove our arms? If he cared about your children, he’d not be ending school choice. He’d not be destroying the economy. If he cared about minorities, his policies would not have created the worst minority unemployment ever recorded.
If he cared about America, he’d not be leaving America less-free than he found it.
Bigger Government. More totalitarianism. A domestic populace who will continue to – willingly – sacrifice liberty for security – when doing so is not necessary. When preventing it is THE bipartisan national security goal.
Is this the strategy underlying Obama’s rejection of bipartisan commonsense multilateral sanctions on Iran?
When the threat of an Iranian assault that can be stopped through bipartisan, working sanctions is abandoned, even forcefully rejected, what conclusion can be reached other than that the goal of the one doing the rejecting is to enable further diminution of our liberty and further growth of a totalitarian State by enabling a lethal threat to our national security?
Stopping Iran now would take off the table the growth of government and concurrent shrinking of our liberties.
Enabling Iran will advance the growth of government and concurrent shrinking of our liberties. And remove Constitutional protections we have fought and died for centuries to keep.
Stopping Iran will NOT move forward Obama’s totalitarian urges.
Enabling Iran WILL move forward Obama’s totalitarian urges.
Suddenly Obama’s threat to America – our freedom, our liberty, our children, our future – and the vehicle through which he will deliver on it – is coming clear: If Obama can go before all Americans sitting in front of their TVs and declare the mere existence of an Iranian nuke, Americans WILL allow massive reductions in our civil liberties.
This is the “fundamental transform[ation]” Obama seeks..
Unless he is removed, this is the transformation Obama will achieve.
I can find no other logical explanation, in his most-watched, most-public State of the Union speech, a speech watched by world leaders, global intelligence agencies, and citizens of many countries and cultures, for Obama to threaten the senior member of his own Party sitting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with a veto on a bipartisan bill aimed directly at preserving the national security of America.
Obama IS the enemy.
Perhaps time is shorter than we think.