Iran has perpetrated a deliberate, calculated act of war against the United States with the just publicized plot to murder the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and subsequent action to blow up the Saudi Arabian and Israeli embassies, all on American soil (an attack magnified in its perfidy by being attacks on diplomats, who everywhere but in barbarism are proof against assault, as diplomats are the only way nations have to speak with each other aside from open war).
I wrote here about the laughing stock our President has made of himself on the world stage. This is the latest example of the dangers to which Obama’s—what: foolishness? repugnant timidity?—have exposed our country. Other examples include the Christmas bomber (AKA underwear bomber), whose attempt at terrorism only failed due to his own incompetence; the New York subway bombing attempt, which was foiled by skilled FBI agents; the New York Times Square parked car bombing attempt, which was foiled only by a couple of alert street vendors; the list goes on. All of these have occurred in the last three years. All of these garnered an Obama response of threats, finger-shaking, and efforts to “isolate” of Iran.
And this week, in the aftermath of a highly laudable and successful attack on the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, he’s actually apologizing, in all seriousness, to the family of another terrorist who was killed along with al-Awlaki for our misdeed in having killed that additional terrorist—a…man who, by his own words, is “proud to be a traitor to America.”
In the seven years between 9/11 and the beginning of the Obama administration, there were no further attempts against our country that weren’t preempted, or blocked, far from our borders. One difference between then and now is that the prior administration took positive action against the terrorists associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and the apparent attack on the White House, and against terrorism generally.
What is Obama’s response to Iran’s act of war? Here it is, in his own words, as provided by Powerline:
So with respect to how we respond, our first step is to make sure that we prosecute those individuals that have been named in the indictment. And I will leave to the Attorney General the task of describing how that will proceed.
The second thing that we’re going to continue to do is to apply the toughest sanctions and continue to mobilize the international community to make sure that Iran is further and further isolated and that it pays a price for this kind of behavior.
…what you can expect is that we will continue to apply the sorts of pressure that will have a direct impact on the Iranian government until it makes a better choice….
His rationale for thinking this might actually be effective? Again, his own words:
…we’ve been able to unify the international community in naming Iran’s misbehavior and saying that it’s got to stop and there are going to be consequences to its actions.
But, what consequences, for example; and, when, exactly? This is just Obamatalk—empty threats and firm finger-shaking, with no intention of actually doing anything.
To be meaningful, consequences have to be capable of altering the target’s behavior in a direction favorable to us, not merely make us feel good. Obama’s words have no deterrent capacity whatsoever; the terrorists and their sponsors know that all we’ll do in response—all the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth, on paper—has the courage to do, is bark and growl like an old dog.
Idle chit-chat, empty threats only alter the target’s behavior in this way: they fill the target with contempt for us, and they encourage the target to continue and to escalate. Any street hood from Chicago knows this. Surely, a community organizer from Chicago knows this, too.