I don’t get it. I read in newspaper columns and hear from television
pundits that Barack Obama is negotiating with the Iranians because he wants to
leave a legacy. But how is making
dangerous concessions to an avowed enemy supposed to create a legacy?
Did Neville Chamberlain
leave a legacy when he sold out Czechoslovakia to Adolf Hitler? Was that piece of paper he waved in the air,
the one that was supposed to guarantee “peace in our time,” a legacy? And when Vidkun Quisling paved the way for
the Nazis to take over Norway, was this too a legacy?
Legacies are marvelous deeds
that improve the lives of many people.
They are therefore celebrated in song and story. Children whisper about how once upon a time a
hero led his nation out of the wilderness.
Is this what Obama is doing?
George Washington left a
legacy. So did Abraham Lincoln. For that matter so did Ronald Reagan, Richard
Nixon, and John Kennedy. Each of these
is identified with significant accomplishments that deserve to be remembered?
Yet does anyone recall
Obama’s position on nuclear proliferation before the recent Iranian
debacle? When our president first came
into office he promised to rid the world of such weapons in their
entirety. He was going to negotiate a
treaty with the Russians that essentially brought our stockpiles down to zero. This was to be a success the world would
emulate.
So what kind of example has
he actually set? Does being
pusillanimous and gullible count as evidence of greatness? Does making so feeble a deal to contain
Iran’s nuclear ambitions that it encourages its neighbors to seek nuclear
weapons warrant being acclaimed?
Whatever Obama is doing, he
is not reducing nuclear proliferation.
He is certainly not making the world a safer place or defending us, or
our allies, from a potential enemy. So
what is he doing?
One theory has it that
Barack is seeking the same sort of opening with Iran as Nixon managed with
China. He is alleged to be converting an
enemy into an ally. Yet does this make
sense? Is Iran looking for support from
us in a way that China was?
In fact, the conditions are
utterly different. China wanted a
counterweight to Russia. So what does
Iran want? Actually, we know. It wants hegemony over the Middle East, the
ascendancy of Shia Islam, and the destruction of the United States—i.e., the
Big Satan. Where, in this, is an
opening for us? What are we to get from
making ourselves more vulnerable?
Some commentators tell us
that if we are nice to the Iranians this will soften their hearts and make them
nice to us. Do these people understand
that the Mullahs who run Iran are deeply committed to their faith? Do they realize that these clerics would
welcome an Armageddon that brings the end of time?
Naiveté and ignorance are
not the stuff of which legacies are made.
To the contrary, they lay the groundwork for betrayal. Obama is in the process of selling us
out—although, to be generous, he may not realize this.
On the other hand, he may
realize it full well. To judge from his
actions, he has more sympathy for our adversaries than for us. Time and again he gives them what they want,
while recurrently weakening our strength.
Churchill purportedly said
that Chamberlain had chosen peace over honor, but in the end would have neither
peace nor honor. This seems to be the
fate Barack Obama has elected.
What will he say when Iran
gets the bomb? What will his fellow
Democrats say if such a bomb goes off in Israel or the United States? Will they plead ignorance? Will they claim they were never warned?
Barack Obama may indeed
being leaving us a legacy. But if it is one
of tears and death, he will be remembered the way Quisling was. He may become our new Benedict Arnold!
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment