Biden wants to protect Iran's nukes.

Stupidity, treason, or something else? You tell me, because I'm at a loss for the right word.

Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, once famously said that Joe Biden was "wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue of the past four decades." That claim was fact-checked by PolitiFact (hardly a right-wing outlet) and found to be largely true — and that was before Biden’s bloody and disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan and his relentless hectoring of Israel following the October 7 pre-civilization atrocities against its people.

It now comes out that Biden wants to protect Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I’m not making this up. Here’s the NYT story from just yesterday:

President Biden said on Wednesday that he would not support a strike by Israel on Iranian nuclear sites in retaliation for Tuesday’s missile attack, signaling an effort to restrain Israel from responding with such force that it could trigger a wider regional war.

Ah yes, the much ballyhooed “wider war.” Please note that Biden/Harris/Blinken virtually always become vocal about the “wider war” after, not before, Israel gets attacked and must decide how to respond.

Mr. Biden’s statement came just hours after he agreed with the leaders of the Group of 7 countries to impose new sanctions on Iran in the wake of the ballistic missile attack on Israel. The president told reporters that the leaders — from France, Canada, Japan, Britain, Italy and Germany — had agreed that Israel had the right to respond to Iran’s attack.

By all means, sanctions! Sanctions, that is, as long as (1) they aren’t actually enforced, (2) wouldn’t do any good even if they were, and (3) have spent not years but decades failing to deter the mullahs.

But when a reporter asked whether he would support a decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, Mr. Biden said he would consider that a step too far.

“The answer is no,” the president said as he boarded Air Force One on his way to tour damage from Hurricane Helene in South Carolina and North Carolina. “All seven of us agree that they have a right to respond, but they should respond in proportion.”

I should quit being amazed that Biden, Harris and the Democrats continue to re-cycle this garbage. How much does it take to prove that a “proportionate” response isn’t going to stop Jihadist barbarism? Indeed, even putting Jihad to one side, you can’t win anything by being “proportionate.” You win by putting the other side’s desire and capacity to hurt you out of commission, cf. the carpet bombing of Germany. Anything less and you lose.

This is not to mention the preeminent backdrop of all this. Looking past the most recent Iranian savagery, what is the single most menacing threat to the peace of the world? China’s aggressiveness is a good candidate, see e.g. this story, but not at the moment Number One. Number One is Iran’s encroaching ability to build and use the atomic bomb.

The Wall Street Journal chimed in yesterday with a sane (but in my view insufficiently appalled) editorial rebuke.

Well, that was fast. Iran fired 181 ballistic missiles on Israel Tuesday, and a day later President Biden was already telling Israel what it shouldn’t do in response [namely, target Iran’s nuclear capacities]….

This is extraordinary. Even before he talks with Mr. Netanyahu, the President engages in public lobbying aimed at blocking a sovereign state and American ally from deciding on its own what is the best response to a direct military attack on its territory. Iran attacked Israel for the second time in six months, but Mr. Biden tells Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the U.S. will help the regime protect its most prized and threatening military asset.

This is the thinking that has led to the collapse of U.S. deterrence on Mr. Biden’s watch. Enemies rely on him to come to their defense by restraining allies from responding to aggression. Mr. Biden didn’t even wait to keep Iran guessing.

For those thinking that Trump won’t be any better, and would indulge his isolationist instincts: Maybe you’re right and maybe you’re not. The one thing we know for sure is that he can’t be any worse. Right now we’re headed for a nuclear Iran. Harris isn’t going to stop it and isn’t going to try (although she might, for the next month, lie about whether she’s going to try).

Question: Have you heard more from journalists about this, or about Trump’s remarks concerning Haitians eating cats? (I should apologize for the diversion, but the state of our “journalism” isn’t a lot better than the state of our deterrence).

The WSJ continues:

The question is why Mr. Biden wants to deter Israel, rather than Iran. Perhaps he fears further military exchanges before the U.S. election, but that leaves control over a decision to escalate in the hands of the enemy. That thinking hasn’t stopped attacks by Iran and its proxies. Israel has made its biggest military and strategic gains when it has ignored such U.S. advice, as it has by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon.

All evidence suggests that Iran continues to move closer to building a nuclear weapon it could deliver on ballistic missiles. If that happens, the world becomes far more dangerous and Israel far more vulnerable. If Mr. Biden won’t take this opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the least he can do is not stop Israel from doing the job for its own self-preservation.

I can’t say it more succinctly or truthfully than that, except to note that it’s not just Israel that is mortally endangered by Joe Biden’s Happy Face snoozing. Iran’s development of the atomic bomb will at the minimum destabilize the planet. It could wind up killing an untold number of people. Biden should eagerly be joining — indeed leading, but that’s too much to hope for — the permanent elimination of Iran’s nuclear capacities and as many blood-soaked Jihadists as it takes to make it stick. I don’t know what to call the failure to do this, but it’s much, much worse than mere stupidity.