Iran is “Tiny”?

Michelle Malkin, Caroline Glick, Roger Simon, and John Hinderaker react to Obama’s statement that Iran is not a threat to us the way the Soviet Union was, because it’s a tiny country that spends only 1/100th of what we do on the military. Iran isn’t exactly tiny—it’s about the size of Alaska, with a population about twice that of California—and how could he know what they spend on military matters? But, never mind. Today Obama says that Iran is a grave threat, and that he’s been saying that all along. Obama seems to have a high tolerance for inconsistency.

Roger Simon puts his finger on a central issue:

These extreme tenets of Khomeinist Shia Islam can be argued to be more dangerous to our future and those of the West than Marxism-Leninism, which promoted itself as scientific socialism and therefore was governed to some extent by scientific evaluation. The IRI is governed by their version of faith in Allah. No science or fact can ever contradict the justice of their cause, which is to them God’s will. Their eschatology includes a belief under which global chaos will bring forth the “hidden imam” or Mahdi, the Shia messiah, who will bring peace to Earth, unified, of course, under Allah.

Consider the danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of people who actually believe that. It’s unclear how many do, but Ahmadinejad obviously does, as do many others in their leadership, particularly in the Revolutionary Guard and its Quds Brigade.

To accept Obama’s (wavering) position, you must assume that Ahmadinejad and the others are lying about their deeply held religious beliefs. That’s difficult to do, since they have been so consistent in their statements and their actions for decades now. Time, to them, is on their side. Furthermore, Obama’s contention that because the Iranians are not as technically advanced as the Soviets they are not as dangerous would be almost silly were it not so potentially catastrophic. It is more likely the reverse. Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics with a divine impetus to spread them is terrifying because it is unrestrained by rationality.

For Obama’s followers, at this moment winning appears to be everything. I think it’s time they reconsider. Their own futures and those of their children are at stake.

And, from Caroline Glick:

Obama has repeatedly stated that unlike Kennedy, if he is elected president, he will not openly threaten war while being open to private talks. Instead, Obama intends to surrender the war option while conducting direct, public negotiations with the mullahs. So from the very beginning, he wants to undermine US credibility while giving Ahmadinejad and his murderous ilk the legitimacy that Kennedy refused to give Khrushchev.

Far from exerting force to strengthen his diplomatic position, Obama has pledged to withdraw US forces from Iraq where they are fighting Iranian proxies, cut military spending and shrink the size of the US nuclear arsenal.

SINCE THE definition of appeasement is to reward others for their bad behavior, and since the US has refused for 29 years to reward the Iranians for their bad behavior by having presidential summits with Iranian leaders, Obama’s pledge represents a massive act of appeasement.