Last Tuesday's terror attack on a Jerusalem synagogue killed five people: four rabbis (including three born in the USA) and a Druze police officer. Two Palestinians entered during morning prayers and attacked worshippers with knives, meat cleavers and a handgun. Congress showed moral clarity when blaming the horrors on Hamas and Palestinian Authority incitement, but Obama's statements were perfunctorily "balanced." Obama warned of a "spiral" of violence—an obtuse refrain of those suggesting moral equivalency between terrorism and the fight against it. Obama also misleadingly claimed that "President Abbas ... strongly condemned the attacks," omitting that Abbas did so only after pressure from the administration and with equivocation. (Abbas suggested a link between recent terrorism and visits by Jews to the Temple Mount, as if to justify the attacks.) It's also worth noting that Palestinians celebrated the massacre (as they did after the 2013 Boston bombing and the 9/11 attacks).
Obama's weak reaction is consistent with his mostly impotent response to ISIS terrorists who behead Americans and Mideast Christians and grow their Islamist empire by the day. Frighteningly, his approach to Iranian nukes follows the same meek pattern, but the stakes are exponentially higher, because when Iran goes nuclear, so does terrorism.
Iran is already the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, without nuclear weapons. Iran-supported Hamas has already tried to commit nuclear terror: Last summer, Hamas launched rockets at Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor. How much more dangerous will Iran become when it has nukes? Even if Iran doesn't directly commit nuclear terrorism, an Iranian nuclear umbrella will embolden the regime and the terrorist organizations it sponsors.
Obama has a long record of weakness towards Iran. In 2009, when Iran's Basij paramilitary force brutalized demonstrators protesting Iran's fraudulent presidential election, Obama kept his response irrelevantly mild for the sake of "engaging" Iran. That surely helped Iranian voters understand the risks of protesting the "free" election of 2012 (involving eight regime-picked candidates). It was indeed a very orderly rubberstamp.
President Hassan Rouhani's election vastly improved the public face of Iran's nuclear program, and Obama was charmed too. Obama has been unilaterally weakening the sanctions against Iran by not enforcing them. He has threatened to thwart any Congressional attempt to limit his nuclear generosity by simply lifting sanctions without Congressional approval. Yet despite these concessions and Rouhani's smiles, human rights abuses in Iran have actually worsened.
Obama declared in 2012 (while running for reelection) that he doesn't bluff when it comes to stopping Iranian nukes, and that containment was not an option, unlike military force. But the credibility of that statement collapsed after Obama shrunk away from his "red line" against Syrian chemical weapons use. In 2013, Basher Assad gassed his own people and Obama took no military action. So if Obama cowers against a disintegrating state, what are the chances that he'll militarily prevent Iranian nukes?
- Next >>
Great Resources to help you excel in 2019! #1 John Eckhardt's "Prayers That..." 6-Book Bundle. Prayer helps you overcome anything life throws at you. Get a FREE Bonus with this bundle. #2 Learn to walk in the fullness of your purpose and destiny by living each day with Holy Spirit. Buy a set of Life in the Spirit, get a second set FREE.