Reportedly, President Obama and newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke by phone ending the hiatus in diplomatic relations. The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic relations with each other since the 1979 Iranian Revolution which entailed the hostage crisis of the same year. Now that a new president has been elected to the Iranian government, hopes have arisen that diplomacy can resume, especially regarding nuclear weapons that Iran is suspected of pursuing. The new president has seemed to hint at a “post-Ahmadinejad” era he would like to start with the world. Many world leaders are open to this and want discussion.
The underlying assumption with everyone who thinks that diplomacy will work is that Iran wants peace and that Islamic Fundamentalism is peaceful. While the new president of Iran may seem to be offering peace, in reality this is most certainly not going to be the case. In an op-ed on Fox News, expert terrorism analyst Erick Stackelbeck claimed that the Obama administration into a commonly employed method of deception: Al-Taquiyya. The word in Arabic literally translates into “deception.” What this means is that Rouhani can preach peace all the day long, but in actuality, peace is the exact opposite of the real goal. The Iranians could be enriching uranium faster than ever before while preaching this message; what makes it most dangerous is that this practice of Al-Taquiyya is condoned by the Quran and the Hadiths.
What world leaders, especially in the United States, need to recognize is that the Iranian president is not the real leader of the country. The Ayatollah is the real leader, along with the mullahs. What Rouhani really becomes is a spokesperson to the world, while back in Iran the nuclear scientists and religious leaders devise plans for the weapons they are attempting to create. If one has this understanding of Al-Taquiyya and its possible consequences, then that person should realize that attempting to reach a “peace agreement” with the enemy will only end in destruction.
An Islamic state composed of religious radicals bent on world domination is not an enemy that can be appeased. Once again, we can allude to history to educate us. In 1938, English Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement, giving Adolf Hitler the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia in return for not pursuing war. Looking at our history books, we obviously know that this appeasement policy failed miserably and the Second World War began in September, 1939.
Here in the 21st century we face a similar threat. An enemy on the other side of the globe has called for destruction of nations and subjugation to Islam. Why are we negotiating with them? What seems to be the case is that few, if any will acknowledge that evil exists in the world. President Obama has not officially declared anyone an enemy of the United States (except for his Conservative critics, of course); yet there are countries that desire nothing less than the destruction of the United States and its values. Iran and its Islamic leadership are one of the forerunners in that list.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Appeasing an enemy who had no plan for peace is not only futile, it is suicidal. The appeaser leaves himself open to attack while emboldening the enemy. Why is it that people cannot see this now? Perhaps it is the fact that many simply refuse to face reality because they are afraid of what may come, or their ideology defies reality. Whatever the reason, how is negotiating with a nation that has consistently called for the annihilation of the Jewish state and establishment of an Islamic Caliphate logical? From a logical perspective, one cannot answer yes. Actions speak louder than words; the fact that Iran has shown no signs in halting their nuclear enrichment program should be a tell-tale sign of their intentions.