[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]If only President Obama were half as interested in making deals with Republicans as he is with striking deals with psychopaths in despotic regimes, perhaps our nation would not serve as a model of governmental inefficiency.[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]Obama and his eternally-naïve counterpart, Secretary of State John Kerry, continue on their Quixotic quest to strike a deal with Iran over nuclear capabilities. Reports continue to emerge that Obama is “obsessed” with the idea of striking a deal with Iran and many fear that this obsession will lead to a deal that is struck at a cost that is far too high.
At the center of the struggle between the two nations is the lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for a supposed slow-down of progress towards nuclear capabilities for Iran. However, not only is any deal secured likely to be disregarded by the tyrannical Iranian regime, but the lifting of such sanctions will likely lead to a vast uptick in state support for terrorism. As it stands now, with sanctions still in place, Iran is already one of the leading sponsors of terrorism in the world.
What makes Obama’s positioning so dangerous, however, is the fact is that he is widely considered to be “legacy shopping,” hoping to use his waning moments in the Oval Office to carve-out a legacy that will serve as a defining moment of his presidency.
With Obamacare continuing to fail and with the worst consequences of the healthcare overhaul scheduled to strike over years- long after Obama has vacated the office- his signature domestic achievement that bears his name is likely to either be repealed or be shown to be a disastrous piece of legislation. With his foreign policy in shambles and Iraq being conquered by Islamic fanatics, and his economic agenda having damaged the U.S. significantly, Obama’s dealings with Iran and equally-despotic Cuba may be his last chance for a legacy.
However, by any conceivable metric, striking a bad deal with Iran is worse than striking no deal.
Still, according to sources, Obama is “obsessed” with the idea of striking a deal with Iran, no matter the cost. According to the London Times, Obama is prepared to “go for broke.”
“Obama wants this as the centrepiece of his legacy, and he believes a peaceful Iran could be a bulwark against Isis in the Middle East and the key to peace there,” said an American diplomat involved in the negotiations.
While the U.S. is taking these negotiations as an opportunity to surge ever forward, heedlessly ignoring the red flags, Iran is taking the upper hand and recognizes that even if a deal is struck, they will not feel obligated to abide by their end of the bargain struck with their enemy. Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, commander of the Iranian ground forces, displayed the seriousness with which he holds the U.S., saying,
“The US might arrive at some agreements with us within the framework of the Group 5+1 (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France plus Germany), but we should never hold a positive view over the enemy. Our enmity with them is over the principles and is rooted because we are after the truth and nations’ freedom, but they seek exploiting nations and putting them in chains.”
The Middle East only understands power. It is an ancient civilization that, in many ways, serves as a throwback to older times and older forms of diplomacy that centered on might.
Case-in-point: the Iranian government held our Americans for 444 days, never once blinking in the face of Jimmy Carter’s pathetic overtures to release the hostages. As a sign of how lowly they regarded Carter’s pathetic groveling, they only released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president- a man who the Iranians knew would put a stop to this whole embarrassing episode.
To put it in context, in terms of tough foreign policy, Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Patton.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]