Authored by William Robert Barber

War is and has been a historical constant. The degree of bane and horrific may fluctuate however the cost, objectives, motives, and impulses for war making since and before the Battle of Kadesh remain effectively the same. Peacemakers try, fail, and try again to abate warlike tensions. They (notably the United Nations) have sponsored peacekeeping organizations, social-civic-economic initiatives, while striving to replace aggressive action with dialogue.

One could take the position that violence stemming from war could have been worse if it wasn’t for the UN and other peacemaking efforts. I take the contrary position. It was our mostly naïve to silly disregard of prudent good sense that prompted our nation into WWI. WWII was the scion of our WWI fatherhood wherein we innocently co-founded along with Stalin, Russian supremacy across Eastern Europe.

Emanuel Kant, according to Friedrich Hegel (another Germanic philosopher) hypothesized that within the matrixes of problem solving is the initial thesis, which upon presentation (from a counter party) inspired antithesis. At this point Kant presupposed the injection of reasonableness, wherein the original thesis and consequent antithesis would compromise on a synthesis. This philosophically sagacious methodology is purposefully rational, pragmatic, sober, and willfully cognitive. It is also naively unrealistic, the counterintuitive of reasonable expectations, and the black-to-white antitheses of deductive analysis. Nevertheless, this is the negotiating basis of the Obama/Kerry team.

What is real, subsequent, buttressed with voluminous historical actuals, is the power of persuasion. The object of persuasion is consensus. The goal of persuasion is to achieve consensus. The types of persuasion vary, such as the deployment of beautiful phrases coupled to tempting incentives, extortion statutorily aligned or extralegal, covert corporeal force, overt conquest, and threats imagined or real. In our world, whether the achieving of consensus incorporates what maybe considered rational, pragmatic, sober, or cognitive is irrelevant. The relevance, regardless of the method of persuasion, is to induce consensus.

All nations competitively pursue policies they perceive as enhancing their sovereign surety. They are bound to a code of survival not morals; indeed their behavioral ethos is inclined to find virtue in amoral principles. Now these nation states are our allies. Our enemies wish only to benefit from our weakness.

Diplomacy has been described as, “War by other means.” For President Obama and Secretary Kerry diplomacy is a substitute for war. Neither contemplate the reality that the United States and Iran have been at war since Jimmy Carter withdrew his support for the Shah.

Iran is an Islamic State. Its preliminary tactic is to bully its Islamic neighbors and threaten the destruction of Israel. Its ultimate “destiny” is to metaphorically re-fight the Battle of Karbala and declare Shiat Ali the true predecessor of Mohammad. Regional Shia dominance is a precursor to the neutralizing of Western regional interest as well as forthrightly, at every opportunity, stomping on American resources and prestige. What the president and his secretary have presented to congress is an embarrassingly one-sided subordination of American regional leadership to Iran. President Obama wholeheartedly believes that this proposed agreement with Iran is the best he can produce — indeed the agreement is the best that anyone could have ever affirmed. I disagree…