We keep hearing about how the nuclear agreement with Iran is the best thing for our country. We’re told we just avoided war. Hate to tell y’all liberal progressives, but Iran’s been in a declared state of war with America.
I’ve shared with you the EFPs (explosive force penetrators) that the Iranians have deployed against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the Iranian Al Quds force leader will now be receiving billions of dollars, enabling a continuance of their terrorism support. Sadly, that was something both President Obama and his Deputy National Security Advisor admitted — that this Iranian deal was not contingent upon their changing behaviors.
So is it any wonder that Arab nations are concerned?
As reported by the Associated Press:
The nuclear deal with Iran was met with a profound wariness in the Arab world, where concerns are widespread that the easing of its international isolation could tip the already bloody contest for power in the region toward Shiite-led Tehran.
Arab countries have deep fears of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, and some have been skeptical that a deal will prevent that from happening. But equally high for key Sunni-dominated Gulf allies of the United States is the worry that a deal gives Iran the means – through an economic windfall – and an implicit green light to push influence in the region.
Here’s my assessment. Obama does not want to contend with ISIS and Iraq, and is more than willing — rather than take responsibility and admit that he was wrong — to turn over regional hegemonic dominance to Tehran. Obama does not want to take any responsibility for his “red line” faux pas in Syria, so he’s abdicated to the Iranians to handle that situation with Bashar Assad. And even to the chagrin of the Saudis — toward whom I do not feel so warmly — he will allow Iranian-backed Houthis to prevail in Yemen.
The United States’ key Sunni Arab allies — well, they used to be, at least — of Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are, without a doubt, silently expressing deep concern. And the Kurds are left with a horrific dilemma —side with Iran, who will dominate Iraq, or find themselves isolated and searching for an ally. They can forget Turkey. Perhaps as a bulwark against Iran, Saudi Arabia may lend support to the Kurds — matter of fact, we shared a story with you recently about the Gulf Arab states bypassing Obama to support the Kurds.
If Barack Obama believes he has secured peace in the Middle East, well, he’s partaking of his own Kool-Aid elixir. Several months ago, we shared with y’all a piece from the Times of Israel about the Saudis speaking with Pakistan about securing a nuclear capability. An arms race has begun and the Saudis know that it’s not beyond Iran to provide material — and now financial — support to ISIS in order to undermine the House of Saud. Now of course, that would be an allegiance of temporary convenience, since ISIS despises Shia Islamic followers; Obama is banking on Iran taking on ISIS.
In Syria, Iran’s support has ensured the survival of President Bashar Assad against Sunni rebels backed by Gulf nations in a devastating civil war, now in its fifth year. Yemen has been torn apart this year as Saudi Arabia, leading a coalition air campaign, has tried to help fend off Shiite rebels supported by Tehran. In Iraq, Saudi Arabia has opposed the growing power of Iran even since the 2003 ouster of Saddam Hussein and the rise of a government led by Shiite politicians close to Iran.
“Deal or no deal, tension in the region is not going to go away,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, a professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University. “If Iran is bent on acting as a hegemon, as a regional power, I think we are in for some difficult times.”
Saudi Arabia issued a pointed warning, saying Iran must use any economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to improve the lives of Iranians, “rather than using them to cause turmoil in the region, a matter that will meet a decisive reaction from the nations of the region,” in a statement carried on the state news agency late Tuesday.
We should never have leadership that bases national security and foreign policy decisions on campaign rhetoric and election cycles. These are decisions that must be made with an eye towards the future. When viewing the Iranian nuclear agreement through that prism, we should realize that in 15 years — 2030 — unless a resolute leader comes into the White House, Iran will be a major economic, military and nuclear power in the Middle East. Think about that, a militant Islamic theocracy with nuclear capability by the time I’m 70 years old. But more importantly, our daughters will be 37 and 33, respectively. In the interim before that, consider the boost in funding to Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces.
At the White House press conference yesterday, President Obama was asked about his concern about Hasan Nasrallah of Hezbollah and Bashar Assad praising this agreement. Obama replied that Assad was a politician and was just spinning this agreement to appease his constituents.
Funny, that’s exactly what Barack Obama is doing — and most folks, both here in America and in the Arab world, aren’t buying it.