Many demand that Obama, the leader of Israel’s most important ally, be trusted with Israel’s security and borders, and agree with Democrats that Netanyahu has no business speaking to America. In trusting Obama’s actions in this regard, these same people should review his trustworthiness in regard to the American “guarantee” of the Budapest Memorandum.
Protecting the sovereignty of the borders of other nations is not on Obama’s agenda. If you doubt this, explain his lack of action in any of the following: the loss of a basically stable Iraq, ISIS in Syria and Iraq, the destruction of Libya (and, by extension of his policy, Mali), the rejection of the missile shield for Poland and the Czech Republic, and complete inaction – even of serious words – on Ukraine.
In discussing an Iranian nuclear weapon, Americans (and Israelis, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, et al), must broaden their view, they must think strategically: Israel is a tactical sideshow to Obama. Israel is less important to Obama than was Czechoslovakia to Chamberlain. Israel is a burr under Obama’s saddle, something that is an annoyance to be dealt with if and when convenient to him – and nothing more.
Too many people, and it seems all pundits, refuse to think outside the box of traditional presidents, yet Obama was elected precisely because he was not a traditional president.
Look at the history of the loss of civil liberties in America in the face of serious national security threats: In the Civil War we lost Habeas, in WW2 we interned Japanese, and after 9-11 we passed the Patriot Act. A nuclear Iran would be an even greater national security threat resulting in a similar acceptance of even greater loss of liberties. Under today’s Democrat party, this loss will not be temporary.
According to a memo to Sen. Sessions from the Congressional Law Library, Obama has usurped powers not available to King George III at the time of our revolution, usurpation that, in an earlier time, resulted in the Glorious Revolution. What better way for Obama to usurp yet more power, act more lawlessly, than to present us with an existential threat?
We already know Obama has, in the testimony before Congress of Jonathan Turley, a liberal law professor and Obama supporter, “become the very danger our Constitution was designed to avoid” as he centralizes power, oversteps his Article 2 powers and fails his Article 2 responsibilities, ignores the Legislative Branch and rejects the Rule of Law.
It is clear from Obama’s actions that he sees an Iranian nuke not as a threat, but rather a means to an end. Any threat to any other nation is irrelevant to those ends. Israel is a gnat on his windshield, its possible or probable loss to an Iranian nuke immaterial in Obama’s drive toward “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” to his liking.
What other logical explanation exists for his antipathy to his own party’s desire to rein-in Iran, let alone his unilateral reduction of sanctions, and his aggressive and adversarial drive to prevent one of our most trusted allies from speaking to American legislators – to the American people – while simultaneously working to overturn that leader by tampering with a foreign election?
Obama is playing a strategic game of realpolitik. He is fully ready, willing and able to sacrifice Israel to his ends. Politicians across the West are making a mistake by viewing Obama’s strategic actions through a tactical lens.
This refusal to see Obama as he is, is becoming an existential issue for Israel – and for America’s freedoms.
An Iranian nuclear weapon helps – not hinders – Obama’s goals.