WASHINGTON, January 25, 2015 — Last Tuesday evening, President Obama warned Congress not to meddle in the administration’s dialogue with Iran’s ruling Mullahs.
“Our diplomacy,” declared the president in his State of the Union address, without a hint of evidence, “is at work with respect to Iran… we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material… But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails… I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.”
That means the president has tabled American military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Rogue Iran, like rogue North Korea, will develop nuclear weapons. Unlike North Korea, Iran will do so with an assist from the White House.
I thought of Argentine prosecutor Alberto Nisman as Obama stood at the House rostrum and threatened a joint session of Congress with a veto in defense of the world’s preeminent terrorist state.
Mr. Nisman, you see, was found dead in his Buenos Aries apartment two days prior to the president’s speech, a single gunshot wound to the head.
Nisman’s suspicious death occurred one day before he was to deliver his findings to the Argentine Congress alleging a plot by that nation’s president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (a leftist loon on par with Obama and the late Hugo Chávez), to offer Islamic terrorists immunity in exchange for Iranian oil.
The Iranian-sponsored terrorists in question bombed the Buenos Aries AMIA Jewish center in 1994, killing 85. Nisman spent a decade gathering evidence of Iran’s involvement in the attack.
In 2006, Nisman said, “We deem it proven that the decision to carry out an attack… was made by the highest authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran which directed Hezbollah to carry out the attack.”
According to the New York Times, Nisman’s 289-page report shows “a concerted effort by representatives of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s government to shift suspicions away from Iran in order to gain access to Iranian markets and to ease Argentina’s energy troubles.”
The summary to Nisman’s report states that “beyond the motivations explained in… [the] indictment of 2006… the disruption in the supply of nuclear material to the Islamic Republic of Iran took place while Latin America was being strongly and aggressively infiltrated by Iran. In other words, the AMIA bombing did not constitute an isolated event and –therefore- it must not be conceived as a single picture. It has to be investigated and understood as a segment in a larger sequence, a part of a bigger image, where the terrorist attack that took place in Argentina, although dramatically relevant, constitutes a piece that requires a deeper knowledge of its context to be properly understood and unraveled.”
In 1996, one year after the AMIA Jewish center bombing, Mark D. Skootsky, a nuclear nonproliferation researcher at the Montery Institute of International Studies, wrote:
“Nuclear trade relations between Argentina and Iran have been extensive since May 5, 1987, when the two countries signed agreements concerning the delivery of highly-enriched uranium… In September 1988, the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] approved the transfer of 115.8 kilograms of uranium, which would fall under IAEA safeguards, from Argentina to Iran. Reportedly, the deal also provides Iran with uranium enrichment information and technology, as well as training Iran’s nuclear technicians at the Jose Balseiro Nuclear Institute in Argentina… In 1992, the IAEA again confirmed that Argentina could supply Iran with reactor fuel.”
Once a haven for Nazis fleeing the Nuremberg war-crime tribunals, Argentina is a Latin American hotbed of seething anti-Semitism. A study conducted by the Gino Germani Research Institute of the University of Buenos Aires found that 82 percent of Argentines believe Jews are “preoccupied with making money,” 49 percent say that Jews “talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust,” and 68 percent believe Jews “have too much power in the business world.”
Whether it’s Eva Perón’s Teutonic brand of National Socialism, or the Venezuelan-inspired international socialism (Chávismo) of Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, you’ll find a healthy dose of anti-Semitism among that philosophy’s many fallacies.
A few days ago, ten Israeli tourists “were beaten, burned, and had stones thrown at them while being subjected to anti-Semitic verbal abuse” while hiking in the hills of Argentina’s Patagonia region, reports London’s Metro news.
“Police arrived within 45 minutes of the incident beginning, however the attackers were so violent that authorities reportedly were unable to control the situation and had to withdraw.”
Back in America meanwhile, the very day in which the president rushed to the defense of Iran in his State of the Union address, Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the administration’s nuclear talks with Iran were designed to slow and not eliminate the terrorist state’s development of atomic weapons.
This admission elicited a terse response from Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), “I have to be honest with you,” Menendez told Blinken, “The more I hear from the administration… the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran. And it feeds into the Iranian narrative of victimization when they are the ones with original sin: An illicit nuclear weapons program going back over the course of twenty years that they are unwilling to come clean on. So, I don’t know why we feel compelled to make their case… They get to cheat in a series of ways and we get to worry about their perceptions. But our perceptions of what they are doing to advance their nuclear interests can be just clearly swept under the rug.”
In a 2012 interview with conservative talk-radio host Glenn Beck, author and documentary filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza dismissed the notion that our president is a naive, starry-eyed idealist or simply out of his depth.
“There are even conservatives that will say of Obama, ‘He’s just a bungler. He’s just an amature. He’s an incompetent… their point is he keeps getting results opposite to what he intends,’” said D’Souza. “And I just step back and say, ‘Maybe he’s getting the results he does intend’… I think the big error with Obama, on the right and the left, is we all think we’re having this policy debate among people who share goals. We all want America to be prosperous. We all want America to be strong. We all want America to be number one. We’re just debating how to get there. Wait a minute. There may be one guy, and he happens to be THE GUY, who is outside that consensus. And for good reason, has a very different agenda.”
That “very different agenda,” says D’Souza, is the president’s quest to fulfill the dreams of his father. That is to say, break the hold of First World, neocolonial, imperial powers over the exploited, developing Third World.
“From the anti-colonial perspective,” wrote D’Souza in Forbes magazine, “American imperialism is on a rampage. For a while, U.S. power was checked by the Soviet Union, but since the end of the Cold War, America has been the sole superpower. Moreover, 9/11 provided the occasion for America to invade and occupy two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, and also to seek political and economic domination in the same way the French and the British empires once did. So in the anti-colonial view, America is now the rogue elephant that subjugates and tramples the people of the world.’
Whether it’s Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo; his blaming a little viewed anti-Islamic YouTube video for the attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya – and not Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists; the spread of ISIS beyond Syria and into Iraq shortly after his withdrawal of U.S. forces; the failure of his soft-power anti-terror policy in collapsing Yemen; his intension to reduce America’s military to pre-Pearl Harbor levels; and his threat to stop Congress from starving Iran of the financial resources it needs to develop nuclear weapons, Obama’s policies prop up radical Islam while they simultaneously reduce America’s economic and military might.
In answer to the president’s pro-Iranian stance, Republican House Speaker John Boehner announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a Joint Session of Congress this March. “In this time of challenge,” said Boehner, “I am asking the Prime Minister [of Israel] to address Congress on the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”
The hard-left administration of Barack Obama and its supporters are livid that a Republican Congress should ask a Jew to speak in defense of Western Civilization.
“I can’t stand him,” said French President Sarkozy of Netanyahu in an unguarded moment to Obama in 2011. “You’re tired of him; what about me?,” answered Obama, “I have to deal with him every day.”
An Iranian nuclear weapon would certainly solve their problem. A more inclusive, final solution than was the small caliber bullet to the head of Argentina’s Jewish prosecutor Alberto Nisman.