Obama's weak position of appeasement will likely lead to a nuclear arms race in the volatile middle east where deranged religious zealotry and lunacy constitute foreign policy.
At least Hitler and Kim Jong-Un feared retaliatory strikes from allies of the nations toward whom they were aggressive, but the nutty Ayatollahs fear nothing, even welcome it.
The middle east may well be the next place we see one of these......
4 comments:
Only if Putin doesn't beat them to it.
Mark Steyn thinks this is quite unfair to Chamberlain, who was a statesman and patriot who got it wrong while negotiating from a position of weakness. Obama, negotiating from strength, joyously helped Iran negotiate the best deal possible for the Ayatollahs.
Chamberlain stayed on in Churchill's War Cabinet and died during the war. I doubt if President Walker-Rubio-Bush-Perry-Cruz will ask Obama to stick around.
“If Iran indeed had a few nuclear weapons and all-important delivery systems why would it attack Israel? Israel has an indestructible nuclear triad: missiles, aircraft, and most lately German-supplied submarines with nuclear-armed missiles on station in the Arabian and Red Seas. If Iran attacked Israel, its nuclear forces would wipe Iran’s 70 million people off the map.
The idea promoted by Israel that fanatical mullahs in Tehran would commit nuclear hara-kiri just to attack Israel is absurd. The real fanatics with nuclear weapons are more likely found on the outer fringes of Israel’s coalition government who [mistakenly] believe God has given them Biblical Israel that they must expand.” (“Iran Paroled From Jail”, Eric Margolis, 7/18/15)
What he said.
”And how is Israel, with hundreds of atom bombs, mortally imperiled by a deal that leaves Iran with not a single ounce of bomb-grade uranium?” (“The GOP’s Iran Dilemma”, Patrick J. Buchanan, 07/18/2015)
Post a Comment