Just How Bad is Obama’s Deal With Iran?

Chuck Schumer talking on television

Obama’s deal with Iran is too much even for some of his hard-core supporters in Congress and elsewhere. High profile attorney Alan Dershowitz, long-time Democrat who has never voted Republican for President, is strongly against it. Democratic U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York is also apparently against it.

In response, former longtime, senior Obama White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer reportedly tweeted, “The [Democratic] base won’t support a leader [Schumer] who thought Obamacare was a mistake and wants War with Iran.”

Pfeiffer’s premise is revealing: Either you support Obama’s appeasement of Iran, or you support war. The only way to avoid war with Iran is to sign a document saying, “It’s OK. We’re not at war.”

Yet Iran’s religious dictatorship has been openly at war with the United States, Israel and their allies for the last 35-plus years. To this day, “Death to America” chants and protests are reportedly a routine feature of daily life in Iran. Obama’s “peace accord” is a statement that we will do everything the Iranian government wants, in exchange for promising not to attack us (or Israel) when or if they eventually acquire nuclear weapons. Of course, everyone knows they will build nuclear weapons or do whatever they want, because their religion teaches them this is what they must do.

In therapy, I’m always telling people: “You don’t have to fight any battle you don’t want to fight.” That’s literally true. It applies to countries as well. This does not mean you should never fight any battle. If attacked, anyone with self-esteem, self-respect and even minimal regard for his or her own life will fight back (or at least run).

While it’s true that you don’t have to fight any battle, if you want to survive, you must defend yourself when attacked. You don’t have the luxury of not defending yourself, not if survival is your standard of value; and pretending that you’re not being attacked, even though you repeatedly are, is not a way to survive.

The same applies to a country. A country’s government cannot exercise the option of running without fighting. To do so means the end of that country and — in the case of a semi-free country like the United States — the end of the protections for freedom that still remain.

Obama’s treaty amounts, in practice, to running away from the problem by openly proclaiming the problem does not exist. It does so by putting into writing the idea, “If we go through the motions of pretending this nation is not already at war with us, then we will not be at war.”

And that’s what advocates of this deal with Iran, like Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer, actually believe. They think that by merely signing a document, it will mean that the U.S. is no longer at war with Iran — even though we most definitely will be, and it will be easier than ever for Iran now to acquire the nuclear weapons it has always stated it intends to use.

Like everyone who is wrong, they rely on the argument from intimidation. “If you don’t agree with this deal, then you want war with Iran.” The almost unspeakable evasion in this statement is disregard for the fact that the United States is already at war with Iran, each and every day, whether it wants to be, or not. Each day, we’re subject to another 9/11-style (or worse) terrorist attack, likely subsidized in part by the Iranian government — and always approved of, by them.

This shows you how psychopathologically deep the confidence in government by progressives runs, at least when the government is operated by progressives like Obama, Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and others. The kind of people who support this deal with Iran are the same kind of people who actually believe that you can wish cheap or free health care into existence merely by signing a law; wish economic growth into existence merely by debt-financing trillions in “stimulus”; wish education into existence merely by pouring billions more into the federal department of education; and on and on.

These are also the same people who think you can reduce or even eliminate crime by outlawing guns. “Make it illegal for people to own guns, and criminals will not be able to own one.” Criminals do not care about the law. They will be the only ones to own guns, should we make it difficult or impossible to own guns.

It sometimes feels like America has been taken over by a bunch of bullying children. Supporters of this Iran deal possess a childlike trust in government action, combined with the foot-stamping mentality of a bratty child: “You had better agree with this, or I will call you names and threaten you!”

Senator Chuck Schumer is no friend of liberty, individual rights or freedom. For example, back in 2008 he stated,
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can’t say, ‘government hands off in one area’ to a commercial enterprise, but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In other words: Let’s extend censorship from pornography to people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or others with dissenting opinion critical of the authorities.

Chuck Schumer is no hero. He has no problem using the force of government not only to restrict pornography involving consenting adults, but the content of any and all speech. He supports Obama in virtually all of his other attempts to denigrate individual rights, capitalism and American self-assertiveness. Yet even for Schumer, this Iran deal is too much to bear.

What does that tell you?

 

 

Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1