“Nothing new here,” said our president, in the spirit of a vain and testy ostrich, upset that someone who did not have his head buried in the sand had dared to contradict his view of the world.
Nancy Pelosi, the house minority leader, leapt to his defense following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Tuesday. She shed great salty tears all through Netanyahu’s speech, or so she said — “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5+1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing a nuclear holocaust.” It is true this administration gets no respect — from Israel or from other nations, whether friend or foe. Why should it?
The Obama administration does many bad things. It snubs friends, kowtows to enemies, downplays the most horrific atrocities (saying they are no worse or different in kind than the crimes that Christians committed against Muslims a thousand or so years ago), and refuses to acknowledge the great threat to the United States and all of Western civilization posed by the growing appeal and rapid spread of the most virulent species of Islamic fundamentalism. And then the administration has the gall to say, as the president did in a recent interview:
The trajectory of this planet overall is one toward less violence, more tolerance, less strife, less poverty.
Sure it is. Even people directly reporting to the president had to be stunned by the ridiculousness of that glowing assessment.
In January of last year, Obama described the glorification of evil by a fanatical Islamist group then beginning to make rapid gains in Syria and Iraq — enslaving and raping women and beheading, crucifying, or burning alive anyone who stood in its way — as a minor threat to our way of life. He told the New Yorker: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think it is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.”
Now the jayvee team — also known as the Islamic State or ISIS — has amassed a territory greater in size than the United Kingdom, it has extended its reach into Pakistan and Afghanistan, and it is enjoying considerable success in recruiting new jihadists from around the globe, including Europe and the United States.
To stop the Islamic State from overrunning Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, the Obama administration has stooped to accepting help from Iran — the world’s leading supporter of terrorism over the past four decades — to fight the Islamic State.
In his address to Congress, Netanyahu was scathing in his implicit denunciation of Obama’s policies and the combination of conceits and willful misconceptions underlying those policies.
In one of the most striking passages in his speech, he pointed out:
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share their Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
“We must always remember,” Netanyahu went on to say, “the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.”
According to Netanyahu, under the deal now nearing completion, “not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.”
The prime minister also pointed out that a “deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. “ He said:
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A regional where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When you get down that road, we’ll see a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Is there “nothing new” in all of these views expressed by the Israeli prime minister? Maybe Mr. Obama doesn’t think so. On the other hand, his own views — going back in time when he was a first-term Senator from Illinois — have been remarkably resistant to change.
To quote from the lead paragraph of a front-page story (“Obama Envisions New Iran Approach’) in the New York Times on Oct. 31, 2007:
Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issue.
Lo and behold, he lived up to every word of that with two exceptions. One is that he now happy to have Iran sending the Revolutionary Guard into Iraq. And the second is that he led the way in insisting upon “decoupling” the nuclear talks from the issue of Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism.
All praise to Benjamin Netanyahu for doing his best to alter the trajectory of change in today’s world before it is too late for Israel, the U.S., and the entire world.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.