Excellent article. These paragraphs don’t summarize the entire thing, but do provide points of reference:
[A]s we witnessed during the “Arab spring,” a thin line divides naive optimism from delusion when the West grasps at straws to convince itself that Islamic fanaticism can be managed diplomatically.
While Israelis have now largely accepted the true nature of Islamic extremism, the Western world remains largely in denial. This is highlighted by the ongoing chant that “Islam is a religion of peace.”
Iran and the rest of the Islamist community — whether Sunni or Shiite — are neither naively optimistic nor delusional about their own intentions. They are neither naively optimistic nor delusional concerning the West’s obstinate indecision nor the bases for it — matters about which the West appears to be delusional.
There is ample blame to go around in the West, but the United States under the “leadership” of the Obama Administration deserves a disproportionate share. With the rapidly vanishing leadership of the United States and the resultant partial vacuum, other nations — Russia and China, for example — are filling the void. They are not our friends, despite the Administration’s enthusiastically naive claims that they are.
Will the United States ever again be in a position to provide firm, effective leadership? That is becoming increasingly doubtful; were the likelihood to be displayed on a graph, the decline would be shown, not as a straight line, but as an exponentially descending jagged curve. Should the United States ever again be in a position to provide the necessary leadership, major and expensive efforts will be needed to do so.
The consensus in 2009 was that the Norwegian Nobel Committee had done something bizarre and stupid by awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama, who clearly had done nothing to merit it.
“So far, the Right, Left and media all seem to agree that the Nobel Peace Prize committee just beclowned itself,” wrote political strategist Jon Henke at the time.
. . . .
But it turns out the joke was on us.
Obama’s recent advances on several fronts in his war against foreign policy common sense can probably be explained at least in part by the actions of the Nobel Committee. It seems that, in his determination to live up to the prize he didn’t deserve, Obama has summoned every ounce of peacenik naïveté bred into him during bull sessions in his dorm rooms at Occidental and Columbia.
At his own site, Mr. Koffler explains:
The decision by the Norwegian Nobel Committee to hand Obama the prize was an attempt to make him live up to an award he didn’t deserve by adopting the panel’s naive philosophy of negotiation at all costs. Obama has lived up to expectations, placing faith in the goodwill of bad men who want to negotiate long enough to complete their evil designs.
It’s a callow approach that will do indelible harm to U.S. national security and cost many lives.
That is as good an explanation as any I have read. Not only that, it also makes sense.
While Rohani is far more sophisticated than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a Holocaust denier who continuously called for Israel to be wiped off the map), he is no moderate. In the past…
View original post 1,142 more words