Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America. Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire…………..
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy……I’ll say it one more time–the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
These words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his address to the U. S. Congress last March are worth repeating because they represent the proper identification of the enemy and moral clarity that are badly missing in the rhetoric from this administration.
Approval of the pending nuclear agreement with Iran will return an outlaw state, the leading state supporter of Islamic terrorism, to the community of nations with a restoration of their economic viability that will enhance their capacity for worldwide mischief while assuring that they will join the list of nuclear powers in a minimum of ten years even if they fully comply with every word of the agreement, which is a pipe dream.
We should have never sat down at the negotiating table with this evil regime for any purpose other than to discuss the timetable for the complete dismantling of all vestiges of their nuclear weapons capability and potential development. As I have previously noted and Henry Kissinger has recently reminded us, these talks with Iran began as an international effort, supported by six UN resolutions, to deny Iran the capability to develop military nuclear weapons. Now we find that the agreement is essentially about the scope of that capability and, in Kissinger’s words, “the impact of this approach will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it”.
Contrary to what this administration would like to offer as an analogy, there is no similarity whatever with our arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. These were talks between two world powers with symmetrical incentives, risks, stakes, and fears, none of which applies here. A better analogy is with the agreement reached with Nazi Germany in Munich in 1938 and even there the full intentions of evil on the part of our adversary then were not yet as obvious as they are with the current Iranian regime. But the stupidity and fecklessness of this deal will top even that one because as a result of it we should know better.