More Views on the Iran Deal, Part II

The same Jewish Journal edition referred to in Part I printed the results of a poll of American Jews' opinions on the deal. Not surprisingly, 71% of those who self-identify as "liberal" support the deal. On the other hand, 72% of those who self identify as "conservative" oppose the deal. As Prager often says, for many liberal Jews "Liberalism" has replaced "Judaism" as their religion. While this shift to liberalism has been going on for some time, the problem has been exacerbated by Obama. Just as Obama has done his best to divide the 99% vs. the 1%, blacks vs. whites, the religious vs. the non-religious, and so on, he has also been effective in deepening the divide between liberal and conservative Jews when it comes to Israel.

When the NY Times and other mainstream media make Benjamin Netanyahu the fall guy in all of this, they are simply following Obama's lead. Obama has distanced himself from Israel and Netanyahu from day one. Recall his comment from 2009, his first year in office, that the US needed to put some distance between us and Israel, because when we were closely aligned with Israel (referring to the Bush years) nothing happened to foster peace with the "Palestinians." It was a total lie, of course, as during the Bush years Israel vacated Gaza and offered a state to Abbas.

From day one Obama has cozied up to the Muslim world, regardless of how radical and extremist they might be. In his speech to the Muslim world from Cairo in 2009 he invited the outlawed terrorist group The Muslim Brotherhood. When The Brotherhood won elections in Egypt after Mubarek was deposed, he sided with them against the current military leader Al-Sisi, who opposed radical Islam. Al-Sisi - the sole Arab leader to say that Islam needs a reformation away from the idea of killing non-Muslims - was opposed by Obama.

Obama did not support the "Green Revolution" in Iran. Obama bowed down to the Saudi King. And Obama considers the Islamic leader of Turkey (Erdogan) - a man who wants to take Turkey from being a secular state to an Islamist run state - one of his closest friends and allies in the world. Erdogan, who has made the former ally of his country, Israel, an enemy, is a man who Obama relates to well. Not so for Netanyahu, the leader of the only democratic country in the Middle East.

The Truth-Uncensored: So what is going on here? Obama is not a stupid man. I have said that his two main goals were redistribution of wealth, and reducing America's footprint and power in the world. How he reaches these goals is of no import - he can lie, be deceptive, be duplicitous, without the slightest hesitation. He is, as one friend noted, Machiavellian.

So, we can assume that Obama knows this "deal" is worthless. If he intended to make a serious deal he would not have dropped every single requirement that he originally said was mandatory. Therefore, Obama knows and assumes that Iran will get nuclear bombs, either now or in the not too distant future. Once Iran has nukes, it not only makes it more difficult, if not unlikely that Israel will attack Iran; it also makes it difficult if not impossible for the next President to consider an attack.

Think about this - one of Obama's other goals was a nuclear-free world. So why would he make a deal that even he acknowledges will allow another country - Iran - to get nukes? And Iran is not just any country, it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

On the one hand, one can argue that he believes a nuclear Iran will help reduce America's influence in the Middle East. After all, he is actually reducing the size of our Army as the world grows increasingly more dangerous. Clearly, he does not foresee further American involvement in the Middle East regardless of what Iran may do. One can also argue that he actually believes that a strong Iran reduces the chances of war, although I am not sure that he would care one way or the other.

Ernest Christian, a Treasury official during the Ford Administration, wrote this in the 7/31/15 Investor's Business Daily: "The historical imperative that America should always give way to the demands of Second and Third World countries and cultures is what may now become known as the 'Obama Doctrine.'" To which I would add: "especially if it is a Muslim country to which we are giving way." Sadly, this truism from Mr. Christian applies no matter how dictatorial or ruthless these other countries' leaders may be.