Mycket tyder på det. Åtminstone när man ser och hör honom tala inför USA:s kongress nyligen. Han pekar tydligt på de islamistiska hoten mot den judisk-kristna västerländska civilisationen. Lysande vältalighet:
Här kan du läsa allt vad han sade (Washington Post).
Jag citerar lite – nej en hel del förresten:
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate [efter Haman alltså] to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
Vidare:
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of ”Death to America,” that same America that it calls the ”Great Satan,” as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of ”Death to America,” that same America that it calls the ”Great Satan,” as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.
And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.
Netanyahu fortsätter:
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.
…
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
Frågan är vilken Västerlandets fiende som USA:s president Barack Obama anser vara värst: Daesh eller Iran. Den Islamiska staten eller den Islamiska Republiken. Daesh (den islamiska staten) saknar kärnvapen och förmåga att utveckla sådana – åtminstone i närtid. Den Islamiska Republiken (Iran) har såväl förmåga som vilja att utveckla sådana, i just det syfte som Netanyahu anger: Att utplåna Israel, USA och Västerlandet. Allt i enlighet med sin konstitution dessutom.
Det allvarligaste hotet mot Israel, USA och Västerlandet tycks då Irans regim stå för, inte Daesh, eller hur.
Men istället för att bekämpa det allvarligaste hotet, Irans regim, väljer Obama att försöka bekämpa det mindre hotet, Daesh. Irans regim är det tvärtom viktigt för Obama att träffa tandlösa avtal med, som absolut inte avvärjer hotet från Irans regim mot Västerlandet, inklusive och nog i synnerhet mot Israel. Tvärtom ger avtalet, om jag tolkat det rätt, Irans regim möjlighet att fortsätta utveckla eller åtminstone bibehålla sin nuvarande kärnkraftsförmåga i ytterligare tio år. Och därefter är Irans regim fri att göra vad den vill!
Nå. Som Netanyahu säger: Min fiendes fiende är min – fiende!
Det är alltid vanskligt att bedriva tvåfrontskrig. Men Västerlandet borde ha kraften, modet och beslutsamheten att bekämpa såväl Daesh som Irans regim samtidigt. Eller åtminstone att först bekämpa det allvarligaste hotet, Irans regim, sedan det näst allvarligaste om det inte går att göra två saker samtidigt.
Att Obama inte har det modet, alternativt begår misstaget att försöka bekämpa det mindre allvarliga hotet och ingå avtal med det största hotets företrädare vilket medför att detta hot blir än större, det är sorgligt och skamligt när det kommer från en president i USA. Samt farligt!
USA har tidigare stått upp för Israel, för Västerlandet. Men med Obama som president vacklar det stödet betänkligt tyvärr.
Länk: Roar Sörensen i Världen Idag.