Barack Obama has a lot of friends who would like to see a Final Solution to the Middle East, if you get my drift. Samantha Power, for instance, told the Institute for Policy Studies (which was founded by the KGB during the Cold War) that the US should invade Israel and set up a puppet government to impose a suicidal deal with Hamas. Nice, huh?
Add to that a mounting certainty that Iran will deploy a nuclear weapon by the end of 2009--a year Obama must devote almost solely to the economy. The "experts" advise Obama to negotiate directly with Iran. To what end, we don't know. We do know Iran's intent: wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Possible US Goals
In talks with a nuclear Iran, the Obama administration has two possible ends: a) Iran's unilateral nuclear disarmament; or b) Iran's sincere, heartfelt promise never to use their nuclear weapons irresponsibly.
Asking Iran to give up the most powerful weapon in the world would be like asking a monkey to give up a banana. "Give me the banana." "Raaaaaach!" The concept might sound nice to the Polyannas, but it Disney World would still win a reality contest.
Option (b) would effectively condone Iran's pursuit and development of nuclear weapons.
But what would Obama offer to Iran in exchange for . . . . whatever? Isn't negotiation about one side conceding something to the other side? So what does Iran want so badly that it would give up its most effective tool to secure?
Iran has oil and the money that comes with it. Unlike North Korea, Iranians are not starving and living in huts. Iran has friends in the region, again in contrast to North Korea. Except for attention and "respect," the US has nothing to offer Iran. And only the bomb garners America's attention and feigned respect.
Oh, and one other thing America has too offer: Israel.
Abandoning Our Most Faithful Ally
Just as Neville Chamberlain surrendered a quarter of Europe to Hitler in exchange for peace in his time, Obama could obtain from Iran an illusory peace by offering to turn his back on Israel.