Obama Comments on Iran's Anti-Semitism and Rational Behavior

Obama expounds the limits of Iran’s anti-semitism, Power Line, Scott Johnson, May 22, 2015

Assuming that Obama intends his remarks to be taken seriously, which I don’t, I find Obama’s comments among the stupidest and most ignorant he has ever uttered, although I concede on this point that that the competition is stiff.

*********************

In the course of his recent interview of President Obama — painful reading from beginning to end — Jeffrey Goldberg asked a somewhat challenging question regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. “You have argued,” Goldberg observed, “that people who subscribe to an anti-Semitic worldview, who explain the world through the prism of anti-Semitic ideology, are not rational, are not built for success, are not grounded in a reality that you and I might understand. And yet, you’ve also argued that the regime in Tehran—a regime you’ve described as anti-Semitic, among other problems that they have—is practical, and is responsive to incentive, and shows signs of rationality.” Oh, wise man, how do you square this particular circle? Obama responded:

Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations. You know, if you look at the history of anti-Semitism, Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders—and there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country—

Goldberg (unfortunately) interrupted him at this point. Obama then continued:

They may make irrational decisions with respect to discrimination, with respect to trying to use anti-Semitic rhetoric as an organizing tool. At the margins, where the costs are low, they may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest. But the costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve represents. And so I think it is not at all contradictory to say that there are deep strains of anti-Semitism in the core regime, but that they also are interested in maintaining power, having some semblance of legitimacy inside their own country, which requires that they get themselves out of what is a deep economic rut that we’ve put them in, and on that basis they are then willing and prepared potentially to strike an agreement on their nuclear program.

This appears to have been good enough for Goldberg, but it should make a serious man cry. Let me count the ways.

Obama is in the process of finalizing an absurd arrangement with Iran that will at the same time obviate the cost of its pursuit of nuclear weapons and reward the regime for entering into the arrangement. They will reap the economic rewards of taking advantage of President Obama’s surrender to their (absurd) terms.

************ Some thoughts inserted into the original article here: Obama is basically arguing that despite the fact that Iran is Anti-Semitic and that they want to destroy both the nation of Israel and all the other Jews outside Israel (as Iranian attacks on Jews in places like Argentina demonstrate) - despite this deeply ingrained hatred, they ARE rational.  Obama suggests they make wise and balanced decisions, maintaining power and only acting on hatred in smaller acts where the costs (retaliation) will not be extreme.

I think it boils down to Obama not giving a damn about Israel or the Jews.  If someone says they hate spiders and want to kill them all, I can argue that spiders are often our friends - they kill lots of other bugs.  If someone says that they hate rats and mice and want to kill them all - I can see why the world might be better without such disease-spreading rodents.  If someone says they hate puppies and kittens and want to kill them all - well I like puppies and kittens and would find such an opinion insane, in a way that comments on spiders and mice and rats did not bother me.  I don't care how successful they might be or how normal they may have seemed up to their puppy and kitten comments, I would doubt and question everything they say and do if I knew they really wanted to exterminate puppies and kittens.  I would not trust their judgment or consider them as business partners or follow their advice or other subjects.  Because I like and value puppies and kittens.

I must strongly suspect that Obama does not value human lives, certainly not the ones in Israel - because Iran is an aggressive nation spewing anti-Israel rhetoric which Obama acknowledges as racist hatred - yet he explains it away as a small facet of generally rational behavior of Iranian leaders who can and should be given free trade, economic wealth, and be trusted with nuclear weapons.

It makes more sense to me that when someone wants a group to have weapons, it is because they hope that group will use them against their enemies.  In Antichrist 2016-2019: Mystery Babylon, Barack Obama & the Islamic Caliphate, I offer a scenario on Iran's use of nuclear weapons, which I believe is supported by prophecy - and it isn't pretty.

Daniel Pipes recently had a debate on a related topic and gave a top 25 list of Iranian quotes on the subject.  Here are just a few:

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001)

Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (2002)

Yahya Rahim Safavi, commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps: “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” (2008)

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei’s representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: “We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” (2010)

Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: “The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel.” (2013)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: “The issue of Israel’s destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader on the issue of destroying the Zionists.” (2014)

Mojtaba Zolnour, a Khamenei representative in the IRGC: The “government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has divine permission to destroy Israel. … The Noble Koran permits the Islamic Republic of Iran to destroy Israel. … Even if Iran gives up its nuclear program, it will not weaken this country’s determination to destroy Israel.” (May 12, 2015)

Obama might not be worried about Iran's intentions towards Israel or the overall rationality of their behavior, but if I were Israeli, I would not want to allow Iran to develop nukes.

I am also reminded of “First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday” - "a well-known slogan in the Middle East. It means that after the Islamists finish with the Jews, they will come after the Christians. The fate of the Saturday people and the Sunday people is intertwined. And the fate of both is put in jeopardy when Christian leaders insist on holding on to a fantasy-based picture of Islam."  (https://wordpress.com/read/post/id/6040382/57587/)  First comes Saturday, then comes Sunday (indeed) - and Sunday is coming sooner than most Christians think. Enemy at the Gates - isn't even a good analogy because Western Liberals invite enemies inside, so when TSHTF it will be Enemies in the House.

************ we now leave DM's inserted comments and return to the original article -

The Islamic Republic continues its program of ideological anti-Semitism and regional expansion. We await Obama’s “ratchet.” The regime evidently fears it not. This is glorified hot air.

Obama reiterates “military option [he’s] made clear[.]” The word “clear” here is the tell; it demonstrates that Obama is lying. There is no United States military option. Indeed, Obama’s public relations work on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran is suggestive of its removal from the shelf.

How does a seriously committed anti-Semitic regime weigh the costs and benefits of its anti-Semitism? I long for Professor Obama to draw from the well of his historical learning to apply the cost-benefit analysis to the Nazi regime of 1933-1945. Somebody get this man a copy of Lucy Dawidowicz’s The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945.

The Israelis draw the lesson they refer to in the slogan “Never again.” Emanuele Ottolenghi offers reflections that are precisely on point.

How does Professor Obama apply his cost-benefit analysis to the Iran’s 1979 bombing of the AMIA (Jewish) in Buenos Aires? It targeted Jews and killed 85 people. What costs was Iran prepared to incur? What costs has Iran incurred? The applicable cost-benefit analysis might illuminate how Iran thinks about the prospect of “eliminating” Israel by means of its proxies and with the nuclear weapons it is striving at all cost to obtain.

As for the regime’s alleged need to maintain a “semblance of legitimacy” inside Iran and therefore its alleged need to “get themselves out of a deep economic rut,” what does he mean? Obama is not saying that the regime lacks a semblance of legitimacy inside Iran at present. Obama himself continues to provide the regime something more than a “semblance of legitimacy.” Is the Supreme Leader feeling the pressure? No one outside Obama’s circle of friends can take this at face value.

Assuming that Obama intends his remarks to be taken seriously, which I don’t, I find Obama’s comments among the stupidest and most ignorant he has ever uttered, although I concede on this point that that the competition is stiff.

NOTE: Noah Rothman also takes a stab at doing justice to Obama’s comments here. It occurs to me that the words of Walter Laqueur in connection with Jan Karski’s mid-war report on the Holocaust in his book The Terrible Secret also apply here: “Democratic societies demonstrated on this occasion as on many others, before and after, that they are incapable of understanding political regimes of a different character….Democratic societies are accustomed to think in liberal, pragmatic categories; conflicts are believed to be based on misunderstandings and can be solved with a minimum of good will; extremism is a temporary aberration, so is irrational behavior in general, such as intolerance, cruelty, etc. The effort needed to overcome such basic psychological handicaps is immense….Each new generation faces this challenge again, for experience cannot be inherited.” In Obama’s world, I would add, experience can’t even be experienced. Ideological blinders render him obtuse (again assuming his words are to be taken at face value, which I don’t).

************** additional comments - I agree with the writer above: Obama may pretend to have the ideology of a typical naive but well-meaning liberal like a Jimmy Carter - and that alone would make Obama a terrible president.  But I believe Obama is not so stupid, and that he very wisely achieves what he wants under the guise of liberal stupidity.  Think about what his policies actually achieve and stop judging them based on their failure to achieve what you would want or what is good for America.  Assume he is acting intentionally and intelligently and getting the desired outcomes.  Read - Antichrist 2016-2019: Mystery Babylon, Barack Obama & the Islamic Caliphate