The road to Tehran….
Oh noooo, President Obama has once again taken an interest in the politics of the Middle East—and even worse, he’s taken an interest in nuclear gamesmanship with Iran. WOOF is prepared to view these latest developments objectively, looking at both points of view. This means allowing on the one hand for the inevitability of any Obama initiative leading to disastrous outcomes because the president is privately committed to advancing Muslim interests while reducing the potency of American influence and doing whatever he can to contribute to the ultimate destruction of Israel, which he despises. On the other hand, to be fair, we must allow for the inevitability of any Obama initiative leading to disastrous outcomes because the president is an idiot. Long time readers know that WOOF is a stubborn defender of President Obama against all those critics who claim he is simply inept and stupid—because we firmly believe that the president, while not the sharpest light bulb in the six pack, is a conscious and not unintelligent component of the worldwide totalitarian socialist conspiracy, who governs with the firm intent of laying waste to our economy, our defenses, and our prestige abroad. And if the president is not himself enamored of seeing Israel come under nuclear assault during his second term, suffice it that Valerie Jarrett is, and it is Valerie Jarrett, a native-born Iranian communist, who makes policy and controls events, at least in the West Wing.
The Hillary Years
The Hillary Clinton era of middle-eastern diplomacy may be said to have come to a squawking halt with Her Magnificence’s hysterical testimony before congress (which testimony was considerably delayed by the mysterious bump to the head Mrs. Clinton evidently received immediately following the assault on our consulate and its annex and the murder of Ambassador Stevens). The details remain even fuzzier than her congressional testimony. But as Obama’s secretary of state she cut a broad swath, beginning her career at State by handing the Russians a red button that was supposed to say “reset” but actually bore the Russian word for “overcharged.” Her Magnificence not only oversaw the total collapse of Russo/American relations, she engineered the overthrow of Gaddafi and the collapse of Libya into terror-driven chaos.
Americans almost completely overlooked this horrendous misjudgment coupled with an unconstitutionally waged war by the Commander in Chief—possibly because those who remembered Gaddafi at all remembered him as the bad guy Ronald Reagan bombed into neutrality in the 1980s. But that is precisely why eliminating Qaddafi made no sense at all…at least from an American perspective. Gaddafi refrained from exporting any further mayhem after Reagan blew up his air force, bombed his palace and sank his navy in 1986 . He renounced terrorism publicly in 2003, agreeing to dismantle his WMD stores and shut down his nuclear program while declaring his intention to join in the fight against Muslim extremism in North Africa. Given these facts, Hillary and Barack could not get rid of the guy fast enough. America flew air cover for Al Qaeda, slowly attriting the loyalist forces in Libya until Gaddafi was captured strapped to the hood of a car and driven around his home town until he’d been pummeled, shot, and stabbed to death, at which point Hillary famously cackled, “We came, we saw, he died!” (And they say she has no sense of humor!)
But the reduction of Libya to mob rule was not Hillary’s first contribution to regional extremism. She and Barack turned on Gaddafi only after toppling our staunchest Arab ally, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. It was with Mubarak’s unceremonious ejection from office following considerable internecine violence and at least one head-turning manifestation of the 4th horseman of the Apocalypse trotting through the riot-torn streets of Cairo [check it out here ] that the American media first began chirruping about “Arab Spring.” To hear CNN or MSNBC on the subject, a fresh passion for human liberty was sweeping the region like a cosseting vernal breeze. Meanwhile, in the real world, the Muslim Brotherhood electioneered its way into the presidential palace in Cairo and set about clamping down on Egyptians with—what else?–Sharia Law. This was exactly what the Obama administration expected and desired, but it caught the media by surprise. An amusing irony inherent in Obama’s snug relationship with the American press is that while the media almost universally adore Our Beloved Helmsman, they have never understood the man, nor fathomed his motives. To an air head, the jabbering media elitists genuinely expected a golden age of democracy to sweep the middle east following fast on the heels of Hillary Clinton’s demolition jobs, but only sectarian violence and Islamo-fascist oppression manifested themselves.
Her Magnificence’s contributions in brief
To innocent bystanders, Hillary’s record at State appears to consist of a series of inexplicable bungles. First, (following her conspicuous failure to master the vagaries of the Russian language), came her now-long-forgotten efforts to restore the communist Manuel Zelaya to power in Honduras after his removal in a bloodless coup d’état authorized by the Honduran Supreme Court. Zelaya’s 2009 ouster was noisily, even bellicosely decried by Her Magnificence and by Obama himself, but in the end Honduras ignored their bombast and Comrade Zelaya found himself exiled to Costa Rica, taking calls from his pals Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, and complaining that “Israeli mercenaries” had snatched him from his presidential bed.
Then came the transformation of Egypt and Libya from stabilizing influences in the region to chaos-riven terror states, which transformation was driven home by the attack on our Libyan consulate in Benghazi carried out by Al Qaeda-allied forces and resulting in the death of Ambassador Stevens, his aide de camp, and two SEALs. Clinton never explained her refusal to lift a finger to reinforce the consulate’s security running up to the incident. She never explained why, in the face of repeated pleas from Stevens that she strengthen his security, she did the opposite and out-sourced the consulate’s protection to a rag-tag batch of locals. She never explained her mysterious absence from her post during the entirety of the crisis, nor her refusal to testify in the wake of the incident on the grounds of having bumped her head. The closest she came to clarifying such matters when she finally consented to address the joint House and Senate committee was when she balled up her fists and shrilled, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” And lest anyone doubt that liberalism is akin to clinical psychosis, let it also be noted that The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson called that “a reasonable question.” But we digress.
Morsi, we hardly knew ye….
While the nattering classes on both east and left coasts scratched their heads in bewilderment, Obama celebrated the installation of Sharia-law fanatics in Egypt by showering them with world-class jet aircraft and Abrams battle tanks, presumably to assist President Morsi in the elimination of his Israeli neighbors whom he famously considered, “bloodsuckers…warmongers…the descendants of apes and pigs.” When the Egyptian army and a considerable portion of the Egyptian people saw fit to rebel against the strangle hold imposed by Morsi and the Brotherhood, Obama shouted shrill admonitions against such contumacy and warned of dire consequences if Mohammed Morsi’s all-terrorist, anti-constitutional despotism were in any way obstructed from attaining its aims. And one of those aims, WOOF has frequently contended, was the kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens in order to effectuate a swap with the United States in which our Ambassador would be returned in exchange for Omar Abdel-Rahman, otherwise known as the Blind Sheik—the militant mullah rotting in federal prison for masterminding the first attack on the twin towers during the Clinton administration. (A van bomb in the basement, remember? It failed to bring down the house.) WOOF has previously asserted, based on information available to us, that the entire Benghazi incident was a kidnapping effort that went lethally wrong when heroic Americans intervened despite Valerie Jarrett’s best efforts to quash any attempts at rescue. Many of you thought we were crazy, remember? Well, we do. But since we posted that article in August, Accuracy in Media (AIM) convened a September 16 conference with the Citizens Commission on Benghazi (CCB), during which, four-star Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, went on record with his belief that the 9/11/12 assault might well have been a kidnapping operation gone awry. Thanks, Admiral! We hate being crazy all by ourselves!
Hillary, as we all know, resigned as Secretary of State, turning her not-inconsiderable posterior to Foggy Bottom forever, just in time to be praised by most of her congressional inquisitors rather than interrogated about her culpability in helping to spawn Benghazi and lying to cover it up. Despite her debris strewn career at State and her resounding diatribes at the hearing, (which the liberal establishment media described as “feisty”) Mrs. Clinton was treated to effusive accolades from almost everyone present. John McCain, as usual, summed it up most irrationally, assuring the outgoing secretary, “We thank you for your outstanding dedication to this nation. We are proud of you. All over the world you are viewed with admiration and respect.” Only Rand Paul spoke of Hillary’s performance as rating dismissal, and he was duly scolded by the Republican leadership for committing probity when flummery was clearly the order of the day.
As for Our Beloved Helmsman, it may be recalled that he waxed positively Dadaistic in praising Her Magnificence as “one of the finest” secretaries of state in American history, insisting that “hard work” lay behind “a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally.” Now, please remember, before you ask “What successes?” that the First Marxist considered the destruction of American alliances and the installation of the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt to be successes, and at the time he issued these encomia, his co-conspirators in the Brotherhood were still in charge in Egypt.
To make certain Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood maintained control in Egypt (given that the Egyptian army and the Egyptian people were increasingly perturbed by Morsi’s expanding personal power not to mention his one-night re-write of the Egyptian constitution, granting himself authority over essentially everyone and everything) Obama ordered his new Secretary of State to Cairo with orders to make sure Morsi remained top banana, (principal pomegranate?), and thus John Forbes Kerry, the first Secretary of State to be honored by a commemorative plaque in Ho Chi Minh City, winged his way toward Far Araby. Once deplaned, Clinton’s successor launched into stentorian declarations of America’s unflagging support of the Morsi presidency, privately directed a variety of threats toward the disgruntled Army leadership (intended to squelch any inclination to stage coups), and released 250 million dollars in foreign aid to Morsi and the Brotherhood as a sign of solidarity. Satisfied that Morsi was firmly established in power, John Forbes Kerry returned to Massachusetts and kicked back on his yacht. He was sunning himself on the poop deck when he learned that the Egyptian Army had gone ahead and ousted Morsi despite his warnings, endorsements, and largesse. Since Kerry appeared foolish sunbathing confidently on his yacht while Morsi’s government collapsed in the wake of his ringing espousals, Kerry denied that he was sunning on his yacht; but alas, there were photos. So he decided that he had, in fact, been sunning on his yacht but that it was really okay because the removal of Morsi by his own military presaged a new age of democratic progress in Egypt, which would indeed seem the conclusion dictated by diplomacy, but Kerry, who was treasonable enough for the North Vietnamese, the infamous Madam Binh, and Jane Fonda, was evidently thought too pro-American to be let in on the Obama Administration’s darkest designs. Thus, Kerry’s sudden (sensible if typically hypocritical) shift to supporting the ascendant Egyptian military earned him the immediate wrath (yes, WOOF knows this) of the West Wing Troika, namely, Barack Hussein Obama, his immediate control, Valerie Jarrett, and his National Security Apparatchik, Susan Rice (she of the Sunday-show anti-Islamic movie alibis, remember? Say is that poor man still in jail?)
John Forbes Kerry must have wondered what hit him when he performed the perfectly traditional and time-honored maneuver of changing sides when Morsi was arrested by the Egyptian military. Suddenly an utterly insensate Susan Rice was all over his case, as was the equally rabid Jarrett. The newly minted Secretary had, after all, botched his assignment completely. Tasked with bolstering Morsi and scaring Morsi’s opponents into inaction, Kerry attended the necessary meetings, made the required speeches, handed out the customary payoffs and issued all the proper assurances, returning home to report his mission accomplished –only to be snapped by photographers relaxing on his boat while in Cairo the Egyptian army was clapping Morsi in irons. A Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton would have played along with Kerry’s sudden shift to the Army as pragmatic in the circumstances, but Team Obama comprises ideologues who identify with third world radicalism—and the deposed Morsi was still their anti-Israeli, anti-American hero. Further, if Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood was complicit in the plot to kidnap Ambassador Stevens and trade him for Morsi’s idol, the Blind Sheik, a military trial posed a considerable risk of exposure. The whole idea of Morsi being a prisoner remains a nightmare for Obama’s staff, and it took weeks for the key players, none of whom realistically understood diplomacy, to get over their chagrin and accept the Egyptian coup as a fait accompli. Like it or not, the radicalization of Egypt was stymied for the time being, and the Obamans turned their attention to Syria.
The war that didn’t focus group well…
Syria was never a primary target, because its dictator, Bashar Al Assad, was an accomplished terrorist, Israel hater, and oppressor of his people—all good reasons to maintain him in place–but it would do for a distraction from the president’s mounting domestic crises, and Obama and Jarrett initially saw it as a good place to conjure up a newsworthy wag-the-dog-style war filled with cruise missiles, bomb bursts, and tracer fire, dazzling viewers with sturm und drang and distracting them from the avalanche of scandals besetting the White house in the wake of the president’s re-election. (Actually, those scandals have been subsequently eclipsed by the overwhelming disaster that is Obamacare, but sapient readers will recall them without WOOF’s prompting.) Besides, the “rebel forces” were once again Al Qaeda-affiliated terror mongers, so supporting them not only had precedent, it could lead to the insertion of a still-more-radically terroristic government in Damascus. A win-win.
As we now realize, the war with Syria (originally scheduled because Syria either had, or had not, used chemical weapons on its own citizens—the rebel forces on closer inspection being equally suspect) was ominously presaged by the president who left no doubt that use of WMD by either side would be blamed on Assad’s side and responded to by force of arms. Anxious to redeem his status after foolishly behaving sensibly in the wake of Morsi’s discomfiture, John Forbes Kerry boldly declared that “The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity,” adding, “If we choose to live in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the United States and our allies said no, and then the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers …”
Wonderful rhetoric, delivered with a passion Kerry customarily reserved for criticisms of America, but the Secretary of State found himself once again out of sync with the West Wing. The original expectation that a high-tech, visually exciting attack would revitalize the president’s sagging popularity and supplant discussion of his scandals, turned out not to poll or focus-group well. Congress refused to support an attack on Syria, the American people overwhelmingly opposed the idea, and only John McCain, himself freshly back from Syria where he accidentally posed for publicity photos with internationally wanted terrorists, backed the plan. Obama went all wobbly, as Margaret Thatcher would say, and Kerry was reduced to explaining that any American interdiction of Assad’s “moral obscenity” would be “unbelievably small.” In the event, even an unbelievably small response failed to win support and the idea was scotched. Apparently the Bamster decided that living “in a world where a thug and a murderer like Bashar al-Assad can gas thousands of his own people with impunity” was preferable to any action that might further depress his poll numbers, and in the end only Vladimir Putin came away looking good—but on to Tehran.
Are we there yet?
Yes, Wooferines, we are here. We are now at that portion of this exposition that deals with our title subject. Relieved? Confused? We trekked this circuitous route because unless we had, it would seem entirely bizarre that we are now at the point of compounding a concatenation of apparent blunders committed across the Middle East with the manifest idiocy of a nuclear treaty that places American trust and security in the laps of the mad mullahs of Tehran, even as they race to build a nuclear arsenal fit for exportation to terror groups around the planet, and presumably for use against Israel. Why are we thus involved? Are the president and his advisers morons? Are they, as Mitt Romney liked to imply, simply in over their heads? Not really. They are ardent supporters of Islamic extremism and anti-Zionism who resent American influence and power and seek to reduce both wherever possible while advancing the cause of a Sharia-based caliphate around the world.
Consider also the dialectical properties of the Iranian peace initiative. War didn’t work out in Syria—in fact the whole war idea blew up in the president’s face, working ultimately to the profound advantage of Vladimir Putin who emerged as the rational peacenik in the room. So what to do? There is a certain psychopathic genius detectable in the administration’s decision to shift tactics without abandoning its strategy. See it? Instead of further destabilizing the Middle East by staging a war—which didn’t go over well at all—why not proceed to further destabilize the Middle East by staging a peace? Just as phony, but not so overtly appalling. Everybody likes peace.
Fortuitously, the oleaginous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who specialized in appearing unmistakably evil and unmistakably crazy simultaneously departed the scene in Iran making way for the rise to power of the 7th president Hassan Rouhani, Islamic cleric, academic, attorney and diplomat. And the same media bobble heads who celebrated the arrival of “Arab Spring” before the Egyptian and Libyan bloodbaths, turned to celebrating the transition in Tehran, solemnly assuring one another that Rouhani was a new kind of Iranian leader—a moderate, a man of the world, a fellow who could be reasoned with, particularly in matters of international affairs. The Washington Post rushed a story to press telling us “5 Things to know about Iran’s new president,” among them that change would be incremental, that he is seen [by some unnamed entity, presumably the Washington Post] as predisposed to diplomacy and pragmatism, and that he is “perhaps the most moderate candidate [of] the country’s six-way presidential race.” So it’s all good, right?
Obama making a nuclear deal with the blatantly psychotic Ahmadinejad would have shocked the smarmiest silver-pony-tailed nuke freeze advocate right out of hisBirkenstocks, but why not reach a concordance with a new president—one “predisposed to diplomacy and pragmatism?” That sounds perfectly fine, doesn’t it? Irresistible, in fact. And look at the baggage this unloads for Our Beloved Leader. Obama has always been adamant that under his administration Iran would not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons. As recently as May of 2012 he told the press, “I ….don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But….when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.” The president punctuated this declaration by curtly adding, “I don’t bluff!” Which assertion must have seemed less hollow before his Syrian retreat.
Given that a man of the president’s stripe can claim that he will take aggressive action to prevent an Iranian A-bomb only until the Iranians do, in fact, have an A-bomb, and must then back peddle, parse, and revise his arguments in view of the fact that he would never dream of doing anything about Iran having an A-bomb, how very pleasant to have an opportunity to allow the Iranians to develop an A-bomb after all, but not before promising not to do so in an absolutely worthless protocol. Sheer genius.
The Geneva detour
The scene now shifts to Geneva, where everybody knows all serious peace negotiations are supposed to happen, and where, therefore, the current Kabuki performance is being staged. And as the current negotiations with Iran dragged into the weekend prior to Thanksgiving, Secretary Kerry (say, that rhymes) was hard at work hammering out a deal with Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, (doesn’t rhyme) and just to add a veneer of legitimacy to the charade, dignitaries from six world powers have been invited to participate. The idea is remarkably simple, once one cuts through the diplomatese. Iran doesn’t like our sanctions, and Obama doesn’t like armed confrontations with people he admires and who might be somewhat hard to beat—so we will dramatically reduce our sanctions, and Iran, for its part, will pretend not to be developing a nuclear bomb. Nobody will keep track of much, anymore than anybody paid much attention to whether Syria was turning its chemical weapons over to Putin after the news cycle shifted—and when Iran detonates a nuke, Jay Carney will soberly inform the Washington Press Corpse that the President is “shocked, and profoundly disappointed,” or some such eyewash. The current theatrics in Geneva will produce a treaty all right—in fact by Sunday, Iran had agreed to “freeze” its nuclear development for six months. And there will be a spiffier sounding accord reached any minute now, and all done up in bundles of interim agreements, continuing rounds of negotiation, and “more comprehensive talks to follow.” You know the drill. But do you remember the blue print for this fiasco? The template was created during the Clinton Administration. Only the names have been changed, and not even all of the names!
The return of the “badass” negotiator!
In 1994 Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of state, met with representatives of North Korea to discuss that outlaw nation’s announced intention to develop a nuclear bomb and build rockets to put it on. The problem was simple. North Korea didn’t like sanctions and we didn’t want them to develop a nuclear bomb, at least not during Clinton’s term of office. After sufficient dithering and posturing, North Korea signed the “Agreed Format,” stating that it would freeze its plutonium program. For our part, we lifted our sanctions, so that North Korea could begin receiving aid from America while, naturally, continuing to develop atomic bombs and rockets to put them on. But back in ’94 it may be remembered, Albright was the toast of the town for pulling off so marvelous a diplomatic feat. Exactly the same process, using exactly the same mechanisms, is now underway vis-à-vis Iran—and it will produce exactly the same results. The cardinal difference being: North Korea is not a stone’s throw from Israel.
Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has rather understandably declined to play a part in this chimera, and the Obamans are forging ahead “over Israeli objections” which can hardly surprise anybody, especially Netanyahu. Anyone who doubts that the liberal media are determined to ooh and ahhh over whatever pile of rubbish eventually emerges from the current exertions in Geneva should consider a CNN article from November 21st, hailing the efforts of “badass” negotiator (this is actually CNN’s phrase) Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman. And what makes Sherman so “badass” in CNN’s point of view? Why, her experience as a razor sharp negotiator, that’s what. And where did she hone her awesome skills? Why, “as counselor to then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright…at the table when the United States sought a deal with North Korea to curb the development and proliferation of Pyongyang’s long-range missiles in exchange for substantial aid and civilian nuclear reactors.” Oh, and that worked out well! Thanks, CNN, you never disappoint.
As for Hassan Rouhani, WOOF predicts he will win the Nobel Peace Prize, probably along with John Kerry as soon as this travesty is inked, and, of course, before he presides over any launched nuclear warheads. It is important in this regard to understand that Rouhani is no more a moderate than was Ahmadinejad—or previous Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat, for that matter. He’s just the least conspicuously grizzled of the three. Rouhani, in fact, is an old revolutionary hand who flew into Tehran with Khomeini and assisted in the creation of the Islamo-facistic theocracy that is today’s Iran. He held considerable influence during the storming of the American embassy and the taking of 52 American hostages. Later, as chairman of the Iranian National Security Council he helped plan the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Cultural Center in Buenos Aires. He almost certainly oversaw the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and must have known of and approved countless other acts of terror and assassination. His anti-American and anti-Israeli ravings are matters of record.
In 2002, Rouhani submitted to an interview with ABC News during which he insisted that President Bush was under the influence of the Zionist lobby which, he explained, fashioned American foreign policy, and added that Hezbollah was merely a “legitimate political group.” But here’s the best part: Rouhani is a long-time nuclear enthusiast and a guiding force in developing Iran’s plans for a nuclear arsenal He served as Iran’s principle nuclear negotiator between August 2003 and October 2005. During his tenure he gave a speech to Iran’s Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, in which he reassured council members that his silky tone and warm demeanor during nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany were purely tactical artifices aimed at buying time for Iran while that nation’s nuclear program proceeded at full throttle. “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran,” Rouhani gloated, “we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there.”
Got that? Let’s review. The Obama regime has dusted off the blueprint for diplomacy that led to North Korea putting A-bombs on the tips of intercontinental ballistic missiles. And to ensure the blueprint is followed exactly, it has placed the same chief negotiator who oversaw the North Korean catastrophe in charge of negotiating what amounts to an identical set of accords with the Iranians. And the Iranian leader with whom these points are being negotiated is an experienced nuclear negotiator himself who is on record boasting about the fact that he views negotiation as a means of buying time while his country’s nuclear program advances unchecked. If you are still asking yourself why this doesn’t bother anybody on our side, please remind yourself that nobody on our side is on our side. Except Israel, of course, whose doom we may well be sealing, and not, mind you, without criminal cognizance of the fact.
Is it any wonder that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough recently characterized the Geneva negotiations as “a great opportunity for Iran?” And an opportunity also for Obama to rekindle the adulation of his lapdog media who will surely follow any announcement of a treaty with starry-eyed declarations that peace is at hand, and orgasmic asseverations that no one can any longer hold Our Beloved Leader undeserving of his Nobel Prize….all of which will remind the discerning how perceptive was Sir John Harington (1561-1612) to write:
Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.