The Geneva Deal Is Worse Than You Know


The Geneva Deal Is Worse Than You Know

America’s president seems determined to preserve the regime in Tehran. Why?

Many have compared what happened in Geneva November 24 with Neville Chamberlain’s infamous capitulation to Hitler in Munich in 1938. In fact, what happened in Geneva is worse—much worse.

Most obviously, Adolf Hitler didn’t have an advanced nuclear weapons program. Hitler led a ruthless regime bent on extinguishing tens of millions, but he had to do it the long, hard way—with troops, tanks, and gas chambers. Iran’s mullahs have similar genocidal ambitions. While they may not have the military physique of Nazi Germany, they are on the cusp of owning something Hitler could only dream about: A means of instant mass extermination. Imagine Chamberlain letting Hitler acquire nuclear weapons. That’s what happened in Geneva.

Most alarmingly, while Munich was a failure of method, Geneva is a failure of intent. Chamberlain failed because he underestimated the evil of Hitler and overestimated the power of diplomacy to oppose it. For all his shortcomings, Britain’s prime minister opposed Hitler and made a genuine, albeit deeply flawed, attempt to stop Nazi Germany. Today, the question of intent remains unanswered. Is Barack Obama deeply concerned by Iran’s mullahs, their ideologies, and their apocalyptic aspirations? Does he sincerely intend on preventing Iran from going nuclear? It’s telling that neither question can be answered with a quick and easy “yes.”

This is a bold assertion, and not one I suggest casually, but unlike Chamberlain, evidence suggests America’s president may support a radical Islamist regime on the verge of going nuclear. And that’s truly terrifying.

Consider the fruits, two in particular.

First, there’s the Obama administration’s policy of regime preservation in Tehran.

Remember the Arab Spring and America’s schizophrenic foreign policy? Mr. Obama was a staunch supporter of most—but not all—of the “democratic” uprisings that swept through North Africa and the Middle East. America’s moral and political support of the protesters was instrumental in toppling Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Muammar Qadhafi in Libya. The Obama administration also fervently supported regime change in Tunisia and Algeria. But what happened when tens of thousands of angry Iranians took to the streets protesting the phony 2009 reelection of radical Islamist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? The White House was conspicuously silent.

Iran’s Green Revolution presented America and the West with a historic opportunity, one of the greatest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, to undermine and potentially topple an archenemy and eradicate the number one state sponsor of global terrorism. But Barack Obama did nothing, making a decision that served to preserve, even endorse, the Ahmadinejad regime.

Then there’s the White House’s persistent policy of stymieing efforts by Israel to confront Iran decisively and conclusively. Israel is the primary opponent of the radical Islamist regime in Tehran, and would undoubtedly eagerly support any sincere effort to confront Iran. Israel is the most obvious and important ally to any world leader who opposes Iran’s mullahs and wants to eliminate the regime as a threat (nuclear and otherwise). If Barack Obama sincerely opposed the regime in Tehran, he’d embrace Israel and work productively with the Jewish state to that end. Yet in the five years since he’s been president, not one snippet of evidence exists indicating this has happened.

Quite the opposite, from the outset of his presidency and as he clearly delineated in his 2009 Cairo speech, Mr. Obama’s moral, ideological and political allegiance is with the Muslim world and Muslim states. Indeed, since Geneva we’ve learned that the Obama administration in recent months has devoted more quality time with Iran than with Israel.

Finally there was last Sunday’s Geneva swindle. Much has been said about how the deal preserves and endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium and pursue nuclear weapons. But what about the way this deal rescued the radical regime in Tehran?

Almost everyone agrees that the economic and financial sanctions the West worked so hard to implement were working. Iranian oil exports had fallen by nearly 75 percent over the past two years, costing the country between $4 and 8 billion per month. Oil revenue accounts for half of government spending. Iran’s currency, the rial, had lost two thirds of its value against the U.S. dollar. Inflation had soared to more than 40 percent. Earlier this year the International Monetary Fund forecast that Iran’s gross domestic product in 2013 would shrink by 1.3 percent—in addition to the 1.9 percent it fell in 2012. Food and fuel prices in particular had rocketed. The public was growing frustrated and resentful. Pressure was mounting on the regime. Given a few more months, maybe a little longer, there was a good chance the sanctions would have crippled the regime.

Think on this. With sanctions working, America simply had to do nothing and the regime would likely have soon fallen into serious trouble. Does it get any easier than doing nothing?In the very least, a severely crippled Iranian economy would have enabled America and the West to enter any negotiations from a position of real strength. With regime survival at stake, Iran’s mullahs would have been likelier to make real concessions. Instead, America’s president in the 11th hour rescued the radical Islamist regime—yet again—by forging a deal that loosens sanctions and injects $7 to 8 billion into Iran’s economy. Why would he do that?

The Geneva deal was more than just an endorsement of Iran’s right to nuclear weapons: It isan endorsement of the radical Islamist regime itself.

The second reason to think President Obama might actually support Iran is the fact that he’s an ideological ally of the radical Islamist regime. In particular, his views on the United States and Israel align perfectly with those of Iran’s mullahs. More than a few people have explored the roots of Mr. Obama’s views on America and the Jewish state, tracing them back to his anti-colonialist upbringing, socialistic education, and infamous circle of friends.

America’s president, wrote Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner, is a “transnational leftist who believes American power must be restrained, not enhanced. More important, he is a cultural relativist. He is convinced the United States is not a singular force for good in the world, but an imperial, jingoistic nation that must be chastened—and humbled—on the world stage.”

Author Dinesh D’Souza has also written extensively on the origin of Mr. Obama’s animosity for America. “From a very young age and through his formative years, Obama learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction,” he wrote in Forbes. “He came to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation. He adopted his father’s position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder. Obama grew to perceive the rich as an oppressive class, a kind of neocolonial power within America. In his worldview, profits are a measure of how effectively you have ripped off the rest of society, and America’s power in the world is a measure of how selfishly it consumes the globe’s resources and how ruthlessly it bullies and dominates the rest of the planet.”

Compare that view of America with the view of Iran’s supreme leader. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei routinely calls America the “Great Satan.” He endorses the “death to America” sentiment prevalent throughout the Arab world, and criticizes America for, as he put it, “its arrogance, its vanity, and its desire to control, and because it is a pawn in the hands of the Zionists.”

Mr. Obama’s animosity for the Jewish state is even more overt. From the Cairo speech, to the appointment of anti-Israel officials in his administration, to his penchant for always siding with Israel’s enemies and always undermining of Israeli foreign policy, to the shunning of Israel’s leaders. The truth, as Caroline Glick wrote in December 2012 (and this week), is that President Obama “wants to hurt Israel. He does not like Israel. He is appointing anti-Israel advisers and cabinet members not despite their anti-Israel positions, but because of them. … Obama wants to fundamentally transform the U.S. relationship with Israel.”

Again, compare that view with that of Iran’s supreme leader. Only last week, days before the Geneva deal, Khamenei gave a public speech in which he called for Israel’s annihilation. “Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals, some of them,” he said. He called the “Zionist regime” the “rabid dog of the region,” and a country “doomed to failure and annihilation.” The White House ignored these remarks and forged ahead with a deal that endorses Iran’s nuclear ambitions and preserves the radical Islamist regime.

What happened in Geneva reveals something deeply wrong with America! Neville Chamberlain wanted to stop Hitler. President Obama clearly has no intention of stopping Iran. America’s president, as Melanie Phillips, Caroline Glick and a few others have also written, is engaged in a war on Western civilization, including the United States and the Jewish state. The question is, where does that deadly sentiment originate?

Can you see that what happened in Geneva, and the way the deal preserves the radical Islamist regime in Tehran—which is consistent with other actions of the Obama administration—is the product of a sinister force operating within America’s government? Bible prophecy, as Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry has been explaining, says the White House has been kidnapped! If you haven’t read it already, you need to read America Under Attack. This book explains the ultimate origin of the deadly spirit of self-destruction that grips America’s government and permeates domestic politics and policy. It explains why America’s president willfully supports a regime that wants to annihilate the U.S. and Israel. In America Under Attack, Mr. Flurry shows that the problem with America is not President Obama. Rather, it’s deadly spirit guiding his mind and actions.

Many people can see that these are disastrous decisions. But we must understand that this isn’t simply the result of ineptitude on the part of this administration, or naivety about how the world really works. We are seeing the aftereffects of a calculated, aggressive, satanic attack aimed at weakening and ultimately destroying the nations of Israel, starting with the world’s most powerful nation!

The Geneva deal reveals a U.S. government engaged in a suicidal foreign policy designed to destroy America and Israel. More than that, it proves what Gerald Flurry and the Trumpet have long been saying: that an invisible, sinister force is at work in the nation’s capital. This is why what happened in Geneva is worse than Munich 1938—and infinitely more alarming than most people know.