Obama: Weak on Iran

Not only is Barack Obama failing miserably on North Korea, he is also failing miserably on Iran.

You've already seen the video of Obama pledging to gut the military, and my previous post shows how he is royally bungling the North Korea situation. Just as important, however, is what's going on with Iran, which he is also royally bungling.

The Heritage Foundation writes about what it takes to keep America safe moving forward into the future:

Major 2010 defense budget cuts expected to be announced by Secretary Gates today are part of a broader theme laid out in last year’s National Defense Strategy and his Foreign Affairs article seeking more “balance” in the military’s equipment portfolio away from high-end systems to fight conventional wars and more toward counterinsurgency capabilities.

In the Post-Cold War world, however, the United States has chosen through numerous defense strategies to embrace a global vision of the world consistent with broad interpretations of its national interests and international priorities. In short, America has accepted its position as the world’s sole superpower and set a consistent framework for America’s military.

Assuming the future will likely mirror the present or recent past is flawed—particularly given global uncertainty and America’s dismal track record for wrongly predicting the future. Instead, the United States must hedge against uncertainty by retaining a core set of military capabilities that can win in any type of future conflict. These capabilities include air superiority, a Navy that can project force throughout the maritime domain, space and cyberspace dominance, and proficiency in both traditional land warfare and the irregular missions like those in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Obama administration has made clear current wars are likely to be an indication of the “hybrid” threats the nation will face in the future—even though these threats are nothing new. In Iraq, the U.S. fought a conventional war to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and later fought a counterinsurgency to protect civilians from insurgent attacks, terrorist bombs, and sectarian militias while standing up Iraqi forces. Likewise, Israel fought a hybrid conflict against Hezbollah in 2006 that showed the growing sophis¬tication of this asymmetric threat to the West.

Unfortunately, the conventional platforms used by the Navy and Air Force will almost assuredly continue to serve as billpayers for the shift toward acquiring more irregular warfare capabilities, including:

• DDG-1000 destroyer
• Ballistic missiles defense systems
• Long-range bomber
• Army Future Combat Systems’ network and vehicles
• Next-generation tanker
• Future cruiser
• CVN Ford-class aircraft carrier and a carrier wing
• Transformational Communications Satellite program and

It remains a sad irony that so-called “hard” budget choices are always those that seek to cut defense modernization budgets rather than advocate the less popular position to increase the defense budget based on current military requirements and a dramatically stressed and aged force.

Only by increasing the modernization budget can the United States continue to field a military force trained and equipped to meet its national interests and global responsibilities. Failing to invest adequately, or worse, pursuing a military force that is ill-prepared for the future, is a path towards relinquishing American primacy.

Barack Obama is relinquishing American primacy. I believe it is intentional, but even if I am incorrect, that is still the end result of his actions and policies.

As with the missile defense shield, even Democrats realize the danger his policies pose:

The letter is signed by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chairman of Armed Services, and the Chairman of the House Intel Committee. It's a serious group of people, and they warn Obama:

Engagement must be serious and credible, but it cannot be open-ended. Our goal should be to bring about Iran's near-term suspension of uranium enrichment, and we should offer Iran meaningful incentives in order to achieve this goal. But we cannot allow Iran to use diplomatic discussions as a cover for continuing to work on its nuclear program....

We urge that the talks begin as soon as possible, so that we will have the earliest possible indication of whether they will succeed in halting Iran's nuclear program. American action on this matter cannot be deferred...until after the Iranian presidential elections...

The Congressmen lay out a series of steps -- sanctions -- that should be implemented if the talks fail to "yield the desired results." They go on, "In short, Mr. President, if we truly mean that Iran cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, urgent action is required today."

Action? What action? Once our nukes are gone, our air superiority is gone, our naval superiority is gone, and our military is defunded, what action is going to be available? Are we going to throw teddy bears and twinkies out the window of our unarmored Hummers and hope the enemy gets distracted, or what?

Now, in the ultimate sign of capitulation, we see this:

Officials are mulling whether the U.S. will reverse course and allow Iran to carry out uranium enrichment to produce nuclear fuel only, not weapons-grade material, according to a report in London’s Financial Times.

Such a concession, being considered as part of a policy review by President Barack Obama, would be a sea change from the Bush administration’s hard-line policy of forbidding uranium enrichment per se.

Do you understand what this means? It means that Obama is considering giving up the fight, and simply allowing Iran to build their nukes without contesting the effort! Would that be so bad? Well, let's just remember what Ahmadinejad promised to do with his nukes once he got 'em:

"Israel must be wiped off the map...The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

And what about the U.S.?

"And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism."

Now, who really thinks it's a good idea to sit back and watch while Iran finishes its nuclear weapons production process?

I leave you with one last quote, a reaction to Obama's suicidal weakness:

[C]iting President Obama's statements that he's not opposed to Iranian enrichment, on April 4, Resalat headlined: "The United States capitulates to the nuclear goals of Iran."

So much for leverage. It's one thing to engage adversaries; it's quite another to have them laugh at us.

Yeah, they'll be laughing right up until the time their bombs drop on New York, L.A., Washington, and who knows where else. They'll be laughing at the stupid American President who signed his own country's death warrant to the true believers of jihad. They'll be laughing as the greatest military power ever seen on the face of the Earth is rendered helpless by its own leader.

And Americans will die in hideously large numbers.

There's my two cents.