At the beginning of April, Barack Obama took what many termed as a “victory lap” celebrating the framework of an agreement with Iran. At the time many asked why he would celebrate before an actual agreement had been reached. The more logical question is why Mr. Obama is so desperately hungry for an agreement with Iran in the first place.
In 2007, then-candidate Obama suggested that as president he would meet with Iran with no pre-conditions. It was such an unorthodox approach that even Hillary Rodham Clinton termed it as “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
By his 2012 re-election campaign, President Obama realized the American public was not keen on being pals with Iran and his all important Jewish constituency feared what a nuclear Iran would mean for Israel. During a 2012 presidential debate, Mr. Obama was crystal clear regarding Iran, “The deal we’ll accept is they end their nuclear program. Its very straightforward.”
Unfortunately the framework of the deal that was championed by President Obama this month doesn’t end Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, it doesn’t even come close. In its current form, the deal allows Iran to keep great parts of its nuclear infrastructure in place. Iran gets to continue with thousands of centrifuges enriching uranium and gets to maintain its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium. Tehran can continue to work on perfecting advanced centrifuges for weapons grade uranium. Wait. There is more.
Iran’s ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear missiles, will not be impacted by the agreement. The issue of Iran sponsoring terror activity goes unaddressed. As for inspections of its nuclear facilities? What inspections? Unfettered inspections by the international community are not part of the deal. Apparently the plan is to just trust them.
In an attempt to understand this new found trust of the sworn enemy of Israel, let’s look back over the past six months for an indication of the current state of relations.
November 2014 - Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, issued a 9-point plan to destroy Israel.
January 2015 - Iran’s foreign minister, Javed Zarif, proclaimed publicly that the West will concede to Tehran in negotiations.
February 2015 - Iran’s top nuclear negotiator had to be ordered to stop screaming at U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
March 2015 - Iran’s supreme leader announced that Tehran distrusts the U.S. Days later he joined an angry mob in declaring “Death to America.” The ayatollah topped that off by insisting there will be no agreement with the West unless all economic sanctions are lifted immediately.
April 2015 - The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s deputy leader, Gen. Hussein Salami, announced the international inspection community will have no access to Iranian military sites.
This past week, Iran sent a convoy of nine ships, allegedly loaded with weapons, to Yemen for delivery to radical Islamic rebels.
What part of this builds confidence and trust? What part of this makes any rational human with the best interest of the United States and our allies at heart thinks that we should move forward with an agreement with Iran?
The president of the United States has a challenging job. But a key element of his job is protecting the people of the United States and protecting our allies. His top responsibility is to watch out for the best interests of U.S. citizens.
Instead President Obama continues to weaken America’s position and global reputation. Whether it was the unenforced red line in the sand in Syria, the release of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay or now the trumpeting of an imaginary agreement with a country whose stated goal is to wipe Israel from the map and whose supreme leader just weeks ago encouraged “Death to America,” there is no measuring stick that would declare such an agreement makes America stronger. Why is Mr. Obama anxious to accept a deal that ignores his own previously stated goal that Iran end its nuclear program? The president’s plan defies all logic.
It has been reported that Mr. Obama would like to visit Iran. Ironically, the last U.S. president to visit there was Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter’s presidency is perhaps best remembered for America’s impotent response to the Iran hostage crisis. Let’s hope that the repeated weakness demonstrated by the current occupant of the White House doesn’t encourage and cement a similar legacy.
Tim Constantine is a political and broadcasting veteran. His daily talk radio highlights can be heard on Washington Times Radio. To learn more about Tim, visit TimConstantine.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.