The New Appeasement: Obama’s emerging deal with Iran

Obama and Iran

As news is emerging about the President’s deal with Iran — one that has become less a plan to stop that nation from becoming nuclear capable and is now a debate “over the scope of that [nuclear] capability…” — the world is starting to look a lot more dangerous, leaving non-interventionists and libertarians both angry and betrayed depending on their prior allegiance. Yes, that same President who so aggressively wanted to get our boys out of Iraq and Afghanistan, has looked the other way and perhaps even aided the proliferation of dangerous weapons of war — and he’s done it nearly unilaterally:

●First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.

●Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.

●Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term.

It’s odd for someone so committed to peace to be so quick to strike a deal that arms a formerly non-nuclear country that has a history of both terrorism sponsorship and a desire to establish control over the broader Middle East. Perhaps it is all just a part of the “strategy of patience”, which, as we know, leads to peace:

Obama’s critics say his refusal to arm Syrian rebels early in their fight against Assad is a prime example of the administration’s restrained foreign policy. The civil war in Syria, now nearing its fourth anniversary, has led to an estimated 200,000 deaths and given rise to multiple Sunni rebel factions that fight each other and Assad. The chaos gave the self-proclaimed Islamic State an opening to extend its reach and control large swaths of both Syria and neighboring Iraq.

Obama later relented, and by mid-2013 allowed the CIA to begin arming a small group of rebels. That effort is now said to have stalled, and the Pentagon has taken over the effort to vet, recruit, and train as many as 5,000 rebels a year under a $500 million program.

Peace and good fiscal policy. No wasting of American assests and money there. Rock solid leadership. Just like with the Russian reset that definitely led to a better understanding between the the US and Russia that gave the latter confidence enough to trust the US would work to create diplomatic relations that would keep them from having to assert their dominance by invading neighboring countries.

The world is definitely a safer place once we decided to pull out of the Middle East (except of course for those “shared interests” with have in the region with Iran), and the need to apologize for atrocities by drawing logically inconsistent moral equivalencies is waning as the progressive ideology begins to take hold and America starts to pay for her “imperialism” and everyone rests a little easier (except for the children being crucified in Iraq presumably).

For the peace-loving anti-war progressives who rallied around the “No blood for oil!” slogan that helped get Obama elected, this must look strange. Because Iran’s nuclear ambitions have everything to do with preparing for and defending against war. And for the libertarians who prefer to stay out of world aggression, they must now begin to realize that, thanks to the backroom deals of this President, the next American leader will have no choice but to play those war games just to keep the country safe.

So, the question is, whose interests has Obama protected, defended, and worked on behalf of?

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.