Iran, I Fell, & I Can't Get Up

Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us"?  We shouldn't worry about the mullahs or “tiny” countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea?

Well, I would agree that Iran doesn't pose the same kind of threat that the Evil Empire did.  Moscow had (and still has) tens of thousands of nuclear warheads on thousands bombers and land- and submarine-based ICBMs.  They also had a massive conventional army that, but for Ronald Reagan deploying medium range nukes in Western Europe (which people like BO opposed at the time in favor of a debilitating "nuclear freeze"), could and probably would have overrun NATO all the way to the Bay of Biscay in a matter of days with very little difficulty.

Iran has no such conventional might and would be foolish to engage us in a conventional set-piece battle (which is part & parcel of why we should invade them now, before they can deploy battlefield nukes against us).  But who ever said that they would?  There's a reason why the mullahgarchy is not constructing massive tank armies and air forces (and thus, only a spend "a hundreth" as much on defense as we do), but is instead seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons arsenal by any means, and as fast as, possible: they're terrorists.  And weapons of mass destruction are, at their essence, terror weapons.  They don't seek to defeat us militarily; they seek to defeat us psychologically.

This is why Hamas is so eager an adjunct of Obamanation.  They recognize what the commies used to call "a useful idiot" when they see one.  By raising the bar of what constitutes a "serious threat" to Cold War levels (and don't forget that the inclination of people like BO to that "serious threat" at the time was....diplomacy and appeasement), anything less than America being reduced to a see of flames in thirty minutes becomes "no big deal," and therefore the ubiquitous purview of "diplomacy".  Which is just fine with "tiny countries" who do not share the old Soviets' rationality, who welcome a nuclear apocalypse as a religious liberation, and who are perfectly content to blast our cities one at a time via terrorist infiltration as opposed to intercontinental ordnance (though their longest range missile can hit our eastern seaboard, in addition to all of Europe).  In Barack Hussein Obama they see the fool who will give them all the time and means to become "a serious threat" piecemeal, as opposed to all at once.

Was 9/11 not a "serious" attack?  Does he really believe that it would have been averted if we had "engaged" al Qaeda "diplomatically" and appeased their "legitimate" grievances?  If Hezbollah set off a "dirty bomb" in Chicago, would that be "serious," or just a prompting to re-double his efforts at unconditional presidential summitry?  Aren't these fair questions given that Obama thinks that we and the mullahs have "common interests"?  What interests would those be, exactly?  Outside the hard-left fever swamps His Holiness inhabits, is there any sentiment in this country for annihilating Israel, vassalizing Iraq, or aiding in the terror war against the West?  Conversely, where in Adolph Ahmadinejad's rhetoric is to be gleaned the willingness to abandon their nuke-quest, leave Iraq and Afghanistan alone, free Lebanon from Hezbo domination, and live in peaceful coexistence with Israel and ourselves?

Having beheld his good, close, personal friend's running mate step on his second Iran policy rake in as many days, all John Sith McCain had to do was offer a perfectly reasonable rebuttal:

Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny”.

Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the president of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on Earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.

If I didn't know better, I'd almost suspect that the fix is in for McCain to go over in November.  Obama certainly seems to be going the extra mile to sell for his election by making himself look like an utter and complete moron.

There's more incredulity from J-Ger, Jennifer Rubin and the guys at RedState.  Only other things I can add are (1) Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were "tiny" countries by BO's definition, and look at the conflagration appeasement and "diplomacy" allowed them to unleash; and (2) today, Ba-ROCK concedes that Iran is a "grave" threat, but insists that it got that way by (surprise!) liberating Iraq and Afghanistan and not appeasing the mullahs.  Yeah, that's the ticket!  If only we'd followed Bill Clinton's example with North Korea and lavished economic, military, and nuclear aid upon Tehran, why, they'd be in a state of total prostration and complete collapse!  Ditto Saddam Hussein in Iraq, who would still be in power and busily building a nuclear arsenal of his own, regardless of whatever "aggressive diplomacy" and sieve-like economic sanctions we imposed.

Maybe George Santayana should have just said, "Those who cannot remember the past vote for Barack Hussein Obama."

UPDATE: Allah, as is his want, muses his way to an intriguing point:

Rather than beat [BO] over the head on how seriously he takes Iran, the better question would be why, if he thinks we’re so vastly stronger than they are, he’s prepared to offer them economic benefits, membership in the WTO, and possibly formal recognition [which the Bushies already offered in exchange for giving up their nuclear program, and were turned down flat] rather than deal with them militarily. It’s more likely that he doesn’t think we’re vastly stronger than they are: The left’s constantly telling us that the war has broken the military and destroyed its readiness, and Obama himself makes the point in the blockquoted part that the war has expanded Iranian influence. In which case, how can he blithely assert that we’d be negotiating from a position of strength if we sat down with them? That’s true only in terms of our nuclear capability, which no president from either party is going to use (least of all him) and Iran knows it. So where’s our leverage? The sanctions haven’t worked and European negotiations have gotten largely nowhere. To go to the bargaining table now would be a show of weakness and would inevitably be taken that way. If you think there’s no other option left, that’s fine, but at least own it. [(most) emphases added]

The more craven one's efforts to escape a war, the more inevitable that war becomes.  False Messiah is as craven as ever, but he has been told it's not a good idea to "own" it, and he's an abysmal dissembler.

He'd be no better commander-in-chief.  The irony is, if he ends up with the job, the crucible he blunders his way into will forcibly smarten him up in a big, big hurry.

Or many of us - and perhaps even he - will die.

Just not all in half an hour.