Let us first get the three most obvious points about the Iran nuclear deal out of the way.
- The agreement with Iran is meaningless in so far as it pertains to nuclear weapons. Iran will get a nuclear bomb because the demands of its national security absolutely require it, and because Iranian leaders are quaint enough to believe — unlike Western leaders — that their country and its faith are worthy of survival. As has been written here before, Iran’s sworn enemies — the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Pakistan (as the nuclear-armed agent for the Sunni world) — all have nuclear weapons and, so long as that fact exists, Iran will not rest until it has a nuclear arsenal that can be both a deterrent and a credible first-strike option. If respected, the deal Tehran signed would leave it subservient and vulnerable to its Christian, Jewish, and Sunni foes and would be clear evidence that Iran’s Shia clerics had agreed to Iran becoming the slave of those who are infidels and apostates. It is unlikely Tehran will voluntarily commit simultaneous national, political, and spiritual suicide in this manner.
- The agreement frighteningly underscores the utter bankruptcy of U.S. and Western political leadership. On this issue, Western peoples again have come face-to-face with the reality that their governing elites are one of two things — liars or brain-dead. Because only a moron could contend that the proud, deeply religious, crafty, and history-conscious Persians would agree to become forelock-tuggers eager to bow to infidels and apostates, the oh-so-highly educated Western elites must be liars. Or, and this is a credible possibility, it may be that Harvard, Yale, Oxford, and the Sorbonne specialize in producing reality-free morons. (NB: There is a particularly hilarious section of the agreement that in time will allow Iran to purchase components needed to build ICBMs. Apparently, the West’s brains-trust thought it a friendly gesture to facilitate Iran’s acquisition of a delivery system for the nuclear weapons it cannot be prevented from attaining.)
- The agreement is defended by Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Cameron, and Hollande as the only option other than war. This is another lie. The other obvious and preferable option is to let those who actually have a dog in this religious war — Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the Sunni states, and Israel — sort out their own problems in whatever murderous mode they would like. Because the West cannot stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and because U.S. national security is not threatened by Iran’s acquisition thereof, let the Middle Easterners cavort in their own lethal religious hatreds.
The only important part of the Iran deal lies in its stark delineation of the two sides in the approaching Sunni-vs-Shia sectarian war and its clear intention to fuel that war. All of the world’s nuclear-armed powers — the U.S., Britain, Russia, India, France, Pakistan, and China — have backed the Iran deal, thereby publicly demonstrating their full support for Shia Iran, its right to greatly strengthen its economy and military, and its ambition to defeat the Islamic State and al-Qaeda and make supplicants of the Arab world’s Sunni states. It also has explicitly shown that the Western Great Powers really care nothing for freedom, democracy, and the human, women’s, and other so-called universal rights they always are noisily preaching and trying to force on Muslim nations. They are now seen by Sunnis to far prefer the maintenance of Shia tyrannies in Tehran, Damascus, and Baghdad, and have no problem with Iran’s Shia-tyranny-building efforts in Lebanon and Yemen. In essence, the West has put itself squarely on the side of the 15-percent of the Muslim world that is Shia, and has implicitly declared war on the 85-percent of the Muslim world that is Sunni.
The result of the West’s Obama-led de facto alliance with Iran will be, for starters, to bring the Shia-Sunni war closer and narrow the gap between the Sunni Arab regimes — especially Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states — and the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda (AQ), and other Islamist fighting groups, as well as between the Islamist insurgent groups themselves. All these entities oppose and fear the Iranian expansionism that already is underway, and will be incensed by the deal’s explicit Western carte blanche for Tehran to both acquire more modern weaponry — including a nuclear weapon at the time of Iran’s choosing — and to act as needed to bring more effective, if Sunni-persecuting-and-murdering Shia government to Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Notwithstanding these realities, the Iran deal’s bottom line does not have to be a disaster that soon involves the United States in another war. Indeed, the Iran deal’s provision of the final spark needed to unleash a regional Sunni-Shia war may well be the agreement’s one positive impact for America. As noted here on occasion, the U.S. government under either party is far too womanish, uncomprehending of other faiths and cultures, and incompetent at war-making to believe that a third U.S. field army — if sent to defeat the Islamists in Syria and Iraq — would avoid the same defeat that the first two suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan. The depth of the strategic ignorance of the U.S. government is evident in the advice of the war-hawk/Neocon Republican Senators McCain and Graham. They have advised sending 10,000 U.S. troops — only 1 in 3 of whom, at most, would be shooters — to Iraq and Syria to defeat IS and other Islamist insurgent groups who all hate the United States and may have as many as 100,000 fighters. And that number would grow quickly if a McCain-Graham army is sent by Washington to re-invade Iraq. Male and female Sunni Islamists from around the world would travel to the Iraq-Syria theater to help kill the troops of a nation they believe has not only endlessly intervened in Islamic affairs but now wants to fasten an apostate Shia tyranny on as much of the Sunni world as possible.
So why undertake and then lose a third interventionist war in the Muslim world, another war that U.S. leaders will have no intention of winning and whose outcome would leave thousands more of America’s soldier-children dead and crippled, probably produce a final descent into irremediable national bankruptcy, and simply lead to another war and future repetitions of the cycle.
It is time for America to be smart and practice an enlightened, Lindberghian selfishness by putting its genuine national interests first. The Iran deal opens the door wide for a chance to bring a blessed end to decades of U.S. government intervention in the Muslim world, as well as the even greater blessing of reinstituting a policy of strict neutrality in all of America’s international affairs. Obama the liar, theorist, and world citizen — with his similarly configured colleagues in Europe — has bumbled into a grand opportunity for Americans to sit back and observe a very big and savage Shia-Sunni war. While watching the bloodletting, the national government must close and militarily secure its southern border; find, prosecute, and deport all illegal aliens living in the United States; install an immigration policy that accepts only those with skills America needs and whom we assess will assimilate; ends student visas for Arab students to eliminate one of the easiest ways for Islamists to enter America; and rebuild the U.S. military forces that Obama and the Democrats have, by all appearances, done their best to dismantle and unman.
At some point, even after recreating a nation that is a neutral, non-interventionist power, Americans almost certainly will have to fight what remains of the Islamists after the coming Sunni-Shia war. But that Islamist force will be a fraction of what it is now, and will not have what has been its most reliable and powerful asset, the motivating force reliably supplied by the U.S. governing elite’s mindless, war-causing interventionism. In addition, as a neutral, non-interventionist power that is more secure, united, and prosperous at home, less hated abroad, not militarily overextended, not burdened by useless, fundamentally anti-U.S. dependents like NATO, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, and led — pray God — by the a president who intends to win the wars America must fight, the United States can act from a position of strength. Then, if the Islamists continue to attack America, we can pick the time and place to deal speedily, definitively, brutally, and indiscriminately with them and their active and passive supporters.
