Iran Nuclear Deal Demonstrates Obama’s Failure to Connect the Dots to Islamic Terror

AP/Vahid Salemi

On the morning of September 11, 2001, Americans awoke to the realization of international terrorism.  Soon thereafter, the federal government began seeking answers as to how such a calamity could have possibly taken place and which terror networks were behind it.

The consensus from Washington seemed to be that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots that led directly to the horror of nearly 3,000 dead Americans on our home soil.  It was a mistake we vowed not to make again.  But now, with the rogue nation of Iran, we seem to be as negligent as we were in the 1990s, only this time willingly so.

After overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001, President George W. Bush, seeking to prevent another domestic attack from happening, turned his attention toward Iraq and decided to invade in 2003, citing the missed signs and vowing to connect the dots.

Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, supported the invasion, but as soon as political winds shifted, they politicized it by blaming Bush, even going so far as to question his leadership before 9/11.  Why weapons of mass destruction were not found in mass quantities in Iraq has never been conclusively explained, though the possibility that they were moved during the delayed invasion is as plausible as any.

Issues surrounding US involvement will be debated for decades.

Now, however, with the power shift in the Middle East,  a dangerous Iranian Islamic nation is now working toward a nuclear weapon, making the Iranians far more dangerous than Saddam’s Iraq.  But rather than recognize a real threat, President Obama and Democrats in Congress seem oblivious to the danger, if not in outright denial.  Rather than seek tougher sanctions, take a more aggressive stance, and portray national strength, the president is supporting a deal with the Iranian government that will allow their nuclear weapons program to continue.

This deal moves forward despite some serious dots that should be connected.

Iran is currently the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world.  It supports terrorists in Gaza, Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Yemen.  Iran supports Assad’s slaughter in Syria and Shiite militias in Iraq, the same militias who are responsible for killing and wounding hundreds, if not thousands, of US troops with IED attacks.

Iran downed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, helped al Qaeda blow up two US embassies in Africa, tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington, D.C., and, according to a US District Court in New York, “materially and directly supported al Qaeda” in the attacks of 9/11.  There is even evidence of Hezbollah training camps in Latin America.

More frightening is the Iranian nuclear program, which is currently enriching large quantities of uranium to build atomic weapon, hiding the evidence from the world.  With their sponsorship of terror, should we expect Iran not to use nuclear weapons in future attacks?

But our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president is desperate for any deal to give him a much-needed foreign policy triumph, even one that will put the US and the rest of the world in jeopardy.  Obama, though, insists  his deal will freeze Iran’s program for a decade, preventing it from moving forward.

Yet Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is more realistic: “That’s why this deal is so bad,” he told Congress. “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Ignoring Netanyahu’s pleas, Obama decided to strike references to Iran and Hezbollah from the “Terrorism” subsection of the intelligence community’s 2015 Worldwide Threat Assessment report.

With a weak president at the helm, 47 Republican Senators took the initiative and penned a short letter to the leaders of Iran, reminding them that the US Senate has a role to play in foreign affairs and that any deal between the US and Iran will be temporary at best.

Absent from that list was Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, who believes that “everybody” in Washington, including President Obama “understands we’re not going to just sit back and let potential adversaries put us in a position where we can’t defend ourselves and protect our country’s interests.”  Cochran, in siding with President Obama and Senate Democrats, obviously prefers a more “moderate” approach to the situation.

Sadly, this is the same oblivious and naïve attitude that led to 9/11.

Granted, we cannot continue to be the world’s police force, and we do not desire another war in the Middle East.  But with the serious threat of a nuclear-armed Iran in the very near future, the time for passive indifference is over.

Let us hope we can finally connect the dots this time before it’s too late.