Oh, That

As historically dishonest and obnoxious in its moral relativism as Obama’s Cairo speech was, it was most egregious and damaging in its treatment of Iran — or its non-treatment of Iran’s nuclear threat. On the Fox News Sunday round table all of the commentators agreed that Obama has essentially thrown in the towel on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Charles Krauthammer observed:

[The president] basically gave what was the weakest statement ever given by a president on the Iranian nuclear issue. He said nothing about enrichment. He didn’t even mention uranium enrichment. And he made it sound as if the entire dispute is over the interpretation of the nuclear proliferation treaty.

Indeed, the president suggested we don’t even have the right to tell Iran what it can and cannot do. But this is worse than his fractured re-telling of the Israeli-Palestinian history, as Bill Kristol notes:

You know, we were talking about at the beginning — it just — when you read those three paragraphs, they’re really startling. I mean, there are three U.N. security resolutions which the Bush administration went to a huge amount of trouble to try to get the Europeans signed on. The Russians and Chinese signed on. He doesn’t mention them.

And so the question remains: will Obama’s cockeyed history lesson get all the parties (which Palestinian party?) to the table for some grand deal or does that stalemate remain while a dangerous confrontation develops between Iran, on one hand, and Israel and its shaken Arab neighbors on the other? If, like Obama, you believe that all that was missing from the “peace process” was the emergence of Obama on the world stage and a dollop of U.S. hostility toward Israel, you think the former. If you don’t buy that, then there is cause for worry. (And,by the way, if the “peace process” blooms and a deal is reached, don’t we still have the problem of a nuclear-armed Iran?)