Remember last fall when President Obama told the world that America will wait to see how Russia responded to the Syrian crisis before we act? And now, he suggests we ask Iran to help stabilize Iraq? He’s pretty much surrendered our post as the leader on the world stage.
Iran is Russia’s strategic ally, not ours. As a matter of fact, Iran is the exact opposite of a strategic ally to the United States of America. It has pledged itself to our destruction. As one of my Facebook friends puts it, asking Iran to help stabilize Iraq is like asking the KKK to help end racism.
Could Iran stabilize Iraq? Of course it can — but at what cost? And what are the implications for America?
First, can we all agree that Iran is a serious threat to the very existence of our country? Recall former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pledge to destroy the West (us) and wipe Israel off the map. Recall the roadside bombs bought and paid for by the Iranian regime that killed and maimed our service men and women. Recall Iran’s vow to develop a nuclear missile with America’s name on it. Need I go on?
Already, this mere suggestion by the commander-in-chief of the world’s superpower has elevated the stature of Iran on the world stage.If Iran is such a threat to America, why on earth would President Obama validate it and weaken us by seeking its help to stabilize Iraq?
Some argue that the new leadership in Iran is “moderate.” But watch out. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the U.N. General Assembly last fall not to be seduced by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s empty promise of peace.
“The only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community,” Netanyahu emphasized.
There can be no greater boost up the ladder of international credibility and respectability than for the United States of America to ask for your help in Iraq. Essentially, we’ve now elevated Iran to the same status of Australia, the U.K., Poland and other allies who helped us in Iraq.
If Iran were to stabilize Irag, it would be running Iraq. It would control that region. And isn’t that what Iran’s mullahs wanted all along, ever since their war with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? We would simply be handing them a military victory they weren’t able to achieve on their own back then. Rouhani would be grinning like the Cheshire cat who was just handed the mouse.
What a slap in the face to the thousands of men and women who gave their lives to fight the war on terror over there. How demoralizing to our wounded warriors and to their families.
What would that say about how we, as a nation, cherish the sacrifice and service of our military? We might as well free the terrorist masterminds they fought to capture. Oh wait, we did that already.
But it gets worse. Not only are we ceding hard-won territory we spent blood and treasure to secure, but we will be unable to contain Iran’s nuclear threat and terrorist financing. Why? Because now we’ll need Iran.
Iran has a number of demands — reducing sanctions, getting the U.N. to back off nuclear inspections, ending democracy promotion efforts, minimizing Israel’s efforts to contain Iran-funded Hezbollah, and so forth. If it’s holding all the cards in Iraq, it can threaten to destroy Iraq if we don’t give in on everything else, essentially leaving Iran free to arm terrorists, grow its nuclear program, kill Christians and continue all the human rights atrocities it’s notorious for.
In other words, Iran would be able to say forevermore: “Nice stable Iraq you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it. Oh, by the way, how about ending all those sanctions on us?”
What kind of U.S. president proposes to empower and enthrone the fiercest existential threat to the U.S. as king of the Middle East?
Asking Iran for help in Iraq is a bad, bad idea.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.