Talking to Liberals About Iran Is a Perilous Art Form
Talking to Liberals About Iran Is a Perilous Art Form

A friend, a woman of refinement and sensitivity--a good liberal--unexpectedly just shocked me. We usually make it a point to steer clear of our known differences as the only way to enjoy what we have in common.

I had emailed twenty five photos of my recent trip to the Norwegian fjords accompanied by 800 words of text to a group of friends. In response to 69 (or 9 %) of these words, this woman wrote back:

"Your photographs are exquisite. And I am sure that in person these views were even more wondrous. We can’t wait to talk to you about the whole trip. I take it that you prefer that Iran continue building a nuclear bomb right now. I disagree."

My friend is a liberal, but she is not a Democratic Party operative. She has liberal reflexes, but she thinks for herself. So, although I usually duck this particular dialogue,  I chose to respond. I wrote:

"Darling--we BOTH oppose war.

But I was rather surprised by how you used the Kool-Aid "take-away" line that all Democrats have memorized as a way of shaming or silencing the opposition to this peculiar...arrangement."

My liberal friend is not alone. If one views the debate about Obama's arrangement with Iran that took place between Lauri Regan, Esq. and Barbara Slavin on New York 1, you will see how a professional Democrat projects an air of self-assurance and access to privileged, superior knowledge via sarcasm, smugness, disdain, and smiling, as they lie through their teeth. The style is meant to intimidate any and all opposition. Regan was not intimidated, she rebutted the lies and emerged victorious from the skirmish--but she was never allowed to present her own case.

I briefly wrote to my friend:

"YOU believe that this non-treaty "thingie" arrangement with Iran will avoid war now, or for a decade, or that it will avoid both conventional and nuclear war forever. I believe that this deal will inevitably lead to war, both conventional and nuclear. I also believe that lifting the sanctions will empower the Iranian mullahs to fund ever more global terrorism. Why would we trust Iranian leaders to distribute funding towards the needs of their people? They are the ones who sent hundreds of thousands of Iranian children to their deaths with the keys to Paradise around their necks--to clear land mined areas. 

In my view, this is not a case of a Bad Deal vs War--it is a case of a Very Bad Deal, one which makes nuclear war even more inevitable."

Then I took a risk. I asked a liberal to read a piece by a conservative in a conservative media outlet.

"Please read Norman Podhoretz in the Wall Street Journal. His view is a compelling one.”

But I still had to reach out. One has to use certain words in order to do so. "Nuanced," "complicated," "arguably a difficult situation," etc. I wrote:

"Of course, the matter is complex. Other countries want to do business with Iran and America may not have been able or willing to stop such a gold rush. Americans may want to do business there. But we are choosing gold over our national self-interest. We are appeasing barbarians, sacrificing our own precious principles by refusing to stand up to barbarians about their human rights violations and their holding American citizens captive.

Not all people want a better world for their own children.
What do you think Churchill might say? That Obama is far worse than Chamberlain? Doing an end run around Congress--after telling Congress they would have 60 days to review the 'thingie' by going to the United Nations and getting a UN Security Council vote does not reflect our President's respect for either Congress or the Constitution. And the UN is ruled by barbarian, totalitarian tyrannies, not by democracies."

I did not drag Israel’s good name into the conversation. That is very important if one wishes to be “heard” on any subject, including Iran and the Bomb—perhaps especially, on Iran and the Bomb.

By the way: Here are my incendiary 69 words:

"Meanwhile, Obama has pulled a really fast and devious one and it is unclear if even Congress can get us out of this potential nuclear disaster. The Man is going directly to the UN Security Council which action may be impervious to Congress's votes unless...unless...c'mon, guess what might stop Obama's deal and I am not talking about a speeding bullet. Am I wrong? Oh, please tell me I am."

A good liberal wants to believe that Obama has saved us from a nuclear war. That makes them feel both safe and righteous.

A good liberal wants to believe that all people want the same thing: Peace, security, prosperity, a better world for their children.

A good conservative understands that radical evil exists in the world; that many world leaders, like people everywhere,prefer to appease a bully for as long as possible rather than stopping him; and that not all people want a better world for their own children.

A good conservative believes that while barbarians are human beings, they are also quite capable of atrocities and of genocide. And that no one will save them but themselves.