CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 30, 2015 – Sports fans know that “three strikes and you’re out” has been the baseball standard since its inception. It is so traditional that it has become a common idiom in the lexicon of American English that defines many other aspects of daily life in this country. Unless you are President Barack Obama, of course, who gets “six strikes” on virtually everything he undertakes.
A perfect example was recently outlined by Professor Efraim Inbar, who teaches political studies at Bar-Ilan University and is the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. Inbar’s article concerns the six immediate negative results of the Obama/Kerry nuclear arms agreement with Iran.
Each of the professor’s points has been analyzed in depth since the deal was made, but it might be well to look at them as a single collection to understand how devastating the Iran agreement really is.
As one Fox news analyst opined, “Obama is seeking to justify his Nobel Peace Prize. Kerry is trying to win one.”
Here are Efraim Inbar’s “six strikes against the Iran accord”:
1 – America is weak
2 – Nuclear legitimacy
3 – Proliferation
4 – Force projection and terrorism
5 – Balance of power
6 – Conflict with Israel
Any of these “strikes” would be disastrous individually, but Obama is incapable of doing anything in a small way, so if one is bad then six is even “badder.”
Summarizing Inbar’s own words provides glaring evidence of why the deal should never have been made in the first place.
Weak America: “It is clear that President Obama was desperate for a deal in order to leave office with a “legacy.” What counts is the perceptions of the countries in the region. Alas, all countries in the region can only conclude that America is indeed weak. America has capitulated to Iran.”
The most sinister aspect of this conclusion is that Obama knows full well he will be long out of office when the “s— finally hits the fan,” allowing him to lay blame on his successor, whoever he or she may be.
Nuclear legitimacy: “The U.S. actually accorded international legitimacy to a large-scale Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including thousands of centrifuges. The deal leaves almost intact all central components of the Iranian nuclear program.” This has been pointed out time and again, falling on deaf ears in the Obama administration. They do not want to hear it, so they don’t.
Proliferation: “This agreement is a stimulus for nuclear proliferation. Indeed, Saudi Arabia has announced its desire for ‘the same type of infrastructure’ that has been allowed to Iran. Actually, the regional nuclear race has already begun and a multi-polar nuclear Middle East is on the way. This is a strategic nightmare. Saudi King Salman refused to attend the U.S.-Gulf State summit. This reflects disappointment with what Washington had to offer, and signals Saudi intentions to try to take care of itself on its own.”
Historically the Saudis created this mess 14 centuries ago when an Arab named Muhammad began having revelations about being a prophet. The Saudis today are not a threat to instigate anything, but they will purchase weapons to protect themselves, and they have the financial resources to do it.
Force projection and terrorism: States and businesses already are lining up to capitalize on the economic opportunities emerging in the Iranian market. The cash influx enhances Iranian capability for supporting proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. The Iranian capacity for subversion and for exporting terror will be greatly magnified.
This, too, has been pointed out repeatedly to the Obama/Kerry team with nothing more than a “we’re right and you’re wrong” attitude.
Balance of power: “The American decision to accept Iran as a nuclear-threshold state, and Obama’s statements in favor of a ‘responsible Iranian role’ in the region, accompanied by an inflated American threat perception of ISIS – signal a most significant change in American Middle East foreign policy. This accord marks an end to Iran’s regional isolation. The naïve American belief that Iran can become a ‘normal’ state – will backfire.”
The key word here is “naïve.” Obama knows precisely what he is doing, but his naïveté lies in the fact that he doesn’t care. He’s the king and nobody is going to tell him what to do.
Conflict with Israel: “American policy is now on a collision course with Israel. The consensus in Israel is that Obama signed a very bad deal, which is dangerous for the Middle East and well beyond it. Israelis, as well as most Middle Easterners, do not buy the promise of a moderate Iran. They know better. Israelis take seriously the calls of the Iranian mobs ‘Death to America. Death to Israel.’”
Israel is the most immediately threatened country in the Middle East as a result of the Iran negotiations. They have been patient far too long, but they will not sit back and allow Islamic terrorists to destroy their country.
In the meantime, what does the U.S. have to gain by siding with terrorist regimes and renouncing our closest ally in the Middle East?
Rather than “six strikes” what the world needs now is a timely and dramatic “inning ending, game changing double play.”
Bob Taylor has been traveling the world for more than 30 years as a writer and award winning television producer focusing on international events, people and cultures around the globe.
Taylor is founder of The Magellan Travel Club (www.MagellanTravelClub.com)
Read more of What in the World and Bob Taylor at Communities Digital News
Follow Bob on Twitter @MrPeabod