Even for someone as woefully unprepared for high office like Obama, figuring out that Iran poses a clear and present danger to our national security shouldn’t have been all that difficult to figure it out. Yet you wouldn’t know it by watching Obama at work. As a candidate he naively extolled the virtues of diplomacy with a sworn enemy that calls America “The Great Satan” and as President he has sat meekly on the sidelines while that same nation slaughters protestors and constructs an industrial sized nuclear weapons program capable of almost incomprehensible damage.
Only months after taking office Obama was handed a golden opportunity to oppose the genocidal inclined Iranian regime with the start of the Green Revolution in June 2009. Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets to protest the rigged reelection of Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and demand the establishment of a free and democratic society. Dissidents practically begged for international support. Leaders of Iran’s Green Party sent a letter to Obama saying:
So now, at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.
The above letter, which was kept hidden from public view until early 2012, runs contrary to State Department claims in 2009 that the Green Party “‘did not desire financial or other support,’ because it ‘would discredit it in the eyes of the Iranian people.’” Iranian activist Roya Boroumand pointed out the obvious when she wrote “Ask yourself why Iranians who protest in the street write things in English. They’re not just practicing language skills.” Hundreds of protestors were shot dead while many more were beaten senseless by motorcycle born Islamist thugs reminiscent of Nazi Party Brown Shirts. According to Mehdi Khalaji, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei was “ready to kill up to 200,000 people.”
The Obama administration released the occasional statement criticizing the Iranian government crackdown, but other than a few stern words they did nothing to encourage regime change. In July 2009 Hillary said of Iran “Our president came to office with a very clear preference for talking with people. … I think there is still a lot of opportunity here”.
U.S. government funding for Iranian pro-democracy groups that began under Bush was discontinued while the State Department cut the Iran Democracy Fund by $25 million. Obama’s message was received loud and clear by the mullahs who knew they had the green light to stamp out the opposition in any way they saw fit.
Obama’s weak kneed response to the Green Revolution did not bode well for negotiations regarding nuclear weapons. Though Iran had been denying it for years, there is little doubt the mullahs have been pursuing the bomb ever since they restarted the Bushehr power plant in 1995. Obama’s response to the growing nuclear threat has been a combination of endless calls for negotiations and threats of sanctions that he has seldom had the will to impose, unless forced against his wishes to impose them by Congress or the EU.
In effort to stop his falling poll numbers in an increasingly skeptical Jewish community, Obama delivered a fiery address during the 2012 AIPAC convention in which he claimed he “has Israel’s back”. If only it were true. Just like the 2009 Cairo speech, the AIPAC speach was so full of lies that it defied belief. Mitt Romney issued a strong response that pointed out the following glaring contradictions:
EXAGGERATION #1: Obama Takes Credit For Leading On Sanctions On Iran’s Central Bank And Oil Exports
Just Three Months Ago, The Obama Administration Opposed The Bill That Finally Instituted Central Bank And Oil Export Sanctions. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sent a letter to the Senate in December 2011 to “express the Administration’s strong opposition to this [Kirk-Menendez] amendment,” arguing it would “yield a net economic benefit to the Iranian regime.” The administration worked behind the scenes to scuttle and water down the amendment, angering the bipartisan sponsors of the bill and forcing the lead Democratic sponsor to tell the administration that “we shouldn’t be leading from behind, we should be leading forward.” The Obama administration finally relented and agreed to sign a watered-down version of the amendment after it passed 100-0 in the Senate.
The Obama Administration Lagged Behind The United Kingdom, Canada, And France, In Calling For And Imposing Sanctions On Iran’s Central Bank. The United Kingdom and Canada imposed sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank and other financial institutions in late November 2011, and France also urged such sanctions. On the same day, the United States declined to impose such sanctions.
EXAGGERATION #2: Obama Has Committed to The Joint Missile Defense Programs—Including “Iron Dome”—That Protect Israel.
President Obama Has Undermined The Joint Missile Defense Program We Operate With Israel By Trying to Vastly Underfund It. President Obama has consistently lowballed funding for our cooperative missile defense programs with Israel that are meant to develop and improve Israel’s capability to defend against short and medium range ballistic missiles. In FY2012, he proposed a budget of $106.1 million, which Congress recognized as wholly inadequate. Congress rejected that budget and increased it to $235.7 million. This year, President Obama has proposed an even lower budget of $99.8 million. This includes a $72.3 million reduction in funding for the Iron Dome system, from $110.5 million to $38.2 million.
EXAGGERATION #3: Obama “Rallied” A “Divided” International Community To Impose Sanctions On Iran By “Exposing” Its Intransigence.
Upon Entering Office, Obama Stalled A Unified International Policy Of Steadily Increasing Sanctions. Before Obama came to office, the United Nations Security Council passed five resolutions between 2006 and 2008, including three that featured steadily increasing sanctions on Iran. Only one nay vote was cast on the Security Council against any of these resolutions. When Obama came into office, he stalled this international strategy, choosing instead a strategy of engagement with the Iranian regime with no preconditions. It would not be until after that engagement strategy failed miserably that the Security Council would pass another resolution on Iran in June 2010, the only Iran resolution of Obama’s term. Unlike the prior resolutions, this one garnered nay votes from both Brazil and Turkey.
EXAGGERATION #4: Whereas The Number Of Spinning Centrifuges Increased Prior To Obama’s Presidency, Iran’s Nuclear Program Was Slowed By Sanctions In 2011.
Obama Conveniently Omits That The Number Of Spinning Centrifuges Has Grown 124% On His Watch, And That It Has Grown At A Faster Rate Than Before. According to the IAEA, the number of spinning centrifuges went from zero in March 2006 (when the first 164 machine cascade was completed) to 3,936 in February 2009, a growth rate of 112 centrifuges per month. Under Obama the total has jumped 124%, from 3,936 to 8,808, a growth rate of 135 centrifuges per month.
EXAGGERATION #5: Obama Speaks Softly, Carries A Big Stick.
The Obama Administration Has Talked Down The Effectiveness And Advisability Of A Military Strike On Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, Undermining The Credibility Of The United States’ and Israel’s Military Options. Administration officials have leaked to the press that its talks with Israel would focus on “the dangers of an Israeli attack” on Iran and attempt to “make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.”
By early 2012 Gulf Arab states including Saudi Arabia and UAE had given up hope that Obama was capable of dissuading Iran from acquiring the bomb and were, ironically enough, looking to Israel for help. According to Forbes, “Saudi Arabia’s rage against the Shi’ites exceeds its dislike of its Jewish neighbors.” In March 2012 Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor confirmed that he had personally received assurances from multiple Arab states that they would support an Israeli military strike on Iran.
Three years of negotiations and multiple rounds of sanctions had accomplished nothing causing the Washington Post to ask, “So what is Obama’s real objective?” The telling answer they got from an Obama administration official was “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel.”
A senior Israeli official said this about Obama’s approach to a nuclear Iran:
While not making a direct comparison, psychologically the current atmosphere in the West is the same as the one in 1939. Westerners who sought peace and coexistence had options but at the moment of truth they chose to sacrifice Czechoslovakia. We’ve been there. While being very careful with this analysis, we have the same psychological phenomenon.
What most Americans do not understand about Iran is their nuclear weapons program isn’t for show, the nukes are being built to be used. Like the Nazi Party before them, we are not talking about rational thinking people. Ayatollah Khomeini is a true believer in the coming of the Twelfth Imam, also known as the Mahdi. According to Shiite prophesies the Mahdi will reappear on a war ravaged earth to lead the survivors to a new age in mankind. Khomeini has said on multiple occasions that his purpose in life is to “pave the path for the glorious reappearance of Imam Mahdi” and do all he can to “hasten his reappearance”. Being that universal chaos is the sign for the coming Mahdi, Khomeini’s goal is nothing less than global war and the death of billions.
The threat of mutually assured destruction doesn’t work with people who want to die and take as many others with them as possible. We have already seen hundreds if not thousands of Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves up believing they will be granted 72 virgins in heaven. Is it really that large a step to believe that Khomeini is serious about starting World War III? If there were any lingering doubts about the purpose of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the regime released a video in 2011 titled The Coming is Near which contains the simple message: the Mahdi is near, prepare for war.
Khomeini sees the Arab Spring and other instabilities in the world as signs for the coming prophet. At 72 years old, in poor health and as crazy as they come he is running out of time to act. While Obama dithers and the EU panders, Iran is getting ready to destroy the world.
Bill Clinton has more than his fair share of blame for the nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea
Most people forget that Bill Clinton played a prominent role in allowing the Iran and North Korea build nuclear reactors in the first place. Like his liberal heir Obama, Clinton came into office with zero foreign policy experience and a tendency to believe whatever sob story he was told by the world’s worst dictators. The mass murdering Iranian theocracy, openly dedicated to the destruction of Israel and sitting on top of the planet’s third largest oil reserves, inexplicably claimed in 1994 that they needed nuclear energy to power their economy. Likewise North Korea was sorely in need of electricity to power its concentration camps and maintain Kim Jong-il’s growing movie collection.
Not willing to bear the burden of denying a dictator quality entertainment, Clinton signed the Agreed Framework of 1994 that allowed North Korea to build a light water reactor for “civilian” purposes. Iran followed suit in 1995 when they restarted construction on the Bushehr power plant with the help of Russian and German engineers and the blessing of the Clinton administration. To the great surprise of liberals everywhere, in 2006 North Korea exploded their first atomic bomb with Iran now well on the way to doing the same.
Clinton’s role in promoting nuclear proliferation stands starkly in contrast to Israel, which responded to Iraq and Syria nuclear power plants with warplanes and 1000 lb bombs. And they didn’t even ask the UN for permission.