Skip to main content

Peace, They Cry, But There Is No Peace

New Taliban flight attendants in Afghanistan

In politics, we should always pay careful attention to what is NOT being peddled through the usual grapevines. Otto von Bismarck used to say, “Never believe anything in politics, until it has been officially denied.” And Bismarck, the realpolitiker who helped cobble together the German state, should know.

Embracing Bismarck’s luminous proposition is not cynicism. It is realpolitik, a sensible appreciation of the way politics has operated everywhere in the real world from time immemorial.

Biden already has, and will in the future, be boasting that he has “ended the war in Afghanistan.” We may imagine, even now, his campaign operatives busily issuing to state Democrat Party disseminators campaign directives rarely seen by the public that will be shared with a credulous media and state and national Democrat campaign committees.

Few will bother to press the point that Biden had not ended a war in Afghanistan. He ended a brittle twenty year peace in Afghanistan. And, given the nature of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan – tribal, warlike, and fiercely determined to re-establish an Islamic caliphate that, during the high tide of Islam in 730 stretched from Medina to Spain – one may reasonably expect hostilities to commence throughout the area sometime after Biden’s August 31 deadline for the pullout of the peacemakers has passed.

There is little reason to believe that the murderous Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- which for years had provided a safe harbor for Osama bin Laden, before he was assassinated on orders from the Obama-Biden-Clinton administration in 2011 – or their supporters in Iran, China and Russia have the best interests of the United States in mind.

None of the long-term traditional enemies of the United States, all reliant on brute force to keep them in power, are likely to be derailed by sweet diplomatic entreaties. The lost war in Afghanistan – or the lost peace, depending on one’s point of view – will soon be replaced, Biden fantasists tell us, by a diplomatic assault on the victors. Now that the U.S. military has vacated Afghanistan, leaving the country to the not so tender mercies of the Taliban, they imagine a sustained diplomatic effort will be quite enough to secure American objectives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and the Middle East.

As Vice President in the Barack Obama administration for eight years, Biden had concluded that Obama’s formulation – that the war in Iraq was a war of choice, while the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity – was wrong-headed. Biden has now ended -- with “mixed results,” friendly opinion pages throughout the nation are bound to conclude -- Obama’s war of necessity. Biden falsely imagines that diplomacy will fill the yawning gap left by a defeated U.S. military.            

At the same time, we are expected to embrace with great hope and energy the notion that the same chief executive who has made the U.S. Mexican border semi-permeable and surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban will be re-pursuing a successful diplomacy with the mullahs in Iran in an attempt to turn the clock back to 2016.

It was in September of 2016 that the Obama administration acknowledged having transferred $1.7 billion earlier in the year to Iran – in hard, easily transferable currency.

CBS News reported at the time, “An initial $400 million cash delivery was sent Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

“The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.”

The payments were bribes, and the money acquired by Iran was used to ramp up terror against Israel by Iranian terrorists, a failed Middle East policy that hung ominously over the meeting between Biden and Bennett.

In a recent meeting, Biden told Israel’s new Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett, “We’re putting diplomacy [with Iran] first and seeing where that takes us. But if diplomacy fails, we’re ready to turn to other options.”

Short of friends after Biden’s abject surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban – the United States’ new “partners”? – Bennett could not have been by cheered the prospect of a resurgence of Obama’s failed Middle East policies. But, diplomatically, he did not entirely bite his tongue.

According to an AP report, “Bennett made clear his opposition to an Iran deal, arguing that Tehran has already advanced in its uranium enrichment and that sanctions relief would give Iran more resources to support Israel’s enemies in the region.

“’These very days illustrate what the world would look like if a radical Islamic regime acquired a nuclear weapon,’ Bennett said. ‘That marriage would be a nuclear nightmare for the entire world.’”

Iran, some nuclear scientists report, is now only a few weeks short of producing such a weapon.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e