This is one of the best commentaries I've read, regarding the Iranian leadership (and I use that term very lightly). I simply can not understand the naivete of our President. If he isn't naive, than he is criminally negligent and traitorous. So I think I'll go with simple-minded and foolish (naive).

How else can he dare compare the purpose of American nuclear technologies, of Israeli nuclear technologies and other free democracies, with that of North Korea and Iran?

One of the saddest aspects of this current rendition of liberalism, which seems to have overrun our government (of course, of which they are responsible for encouraging and following) is the vile belief in moral equivalence. To today's liberals, The genocidal suicide cult that is the Islamic Republic of Iran is of equal moral standing to that of the United States of America, and probably more so than the State of Israel - whose only real crime is defending herself.

There is a certain sickness to these kind of beliefs, just like there is a certain sickness environmentalists who forget that human beings are a product of nature as well. But I will rant later about the hypocrisy of the environmentalist movement (this is not to say that caring for the earth is wrong).

I have watched Obama attempt to do all of the things liberals blamed George Bush of doing. I have watched as Obama has made friends with our worst enemies, and then made enemies of our friends. I have watched as Obama meddled in the affairs of Honduras and Israel, yet refused to lift a finger to help the freedom movement in Iran. I have watched as he promised Poland that he would keep his word and place a missile defense system in Poland, only to renege - for nothing in return - in order to appease a growling Russia.

I have watched as Obama appoints extremely radical "Czars" without congressional approval, only to have them embarrass the President when FOX News discovered who these radicals were. I watched as peaceful rallies popped up all over America, only to have the administration call those citizens "Nazis", "Racists" and "rednecks". I've watched as the President of the United States ignores the majority will of the people he was elected to serve by continuing to push a health care bill we not not only afford, but do not want.

And I have watched as the administration continues to shame themselves by getting into a pissing contest with a major news network. I mean, does it seem odd that the President would meet with the worst thugs of the world, but won't meet with Mike Wallace at FOX News?

Even Nixon met with the press he hated. George Bush never refused to be on MSNBC. Each and every day, President Obama makes himself into a smaller man. What many moderates felt was a man who "stood above the fray" has turned into a man who fiddles while Rome (Afghanistan) burns.

Anyway, check out this article. I know you will be glad you did:

Regime Is Iran's Disease; Nukes Are Just a Symptom
Jonah Goldberg

The Nobel Peace Prize has renewed prestige in my book. No, not because Barack Obama won it for accomplishments to be determined later. It's got new luster because Shirin Ebadi has, at great personal risk, effectively come out for regime change in her native Iran.

Ebadi, who won the Peace Prize six years ago (under the old rules whereby recipients were expected to do something to earn the prize before receiving it), is Iran's premier human rights lawyer. In an interview with the editors of the Washington Post, Ebadi "suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy."

Her point is precisely the same point made by so-called neoconservatives for years. The problem with Iran is its regime; its nuclear program is merely a symptom of that problem.

Do you lay awake at night worrying about Britain's nuclear weapons? France's? Israel's? Of course not, because stable democracies in general, and stable democratic allies in particular, aren't a threat.

If your neighbor is an upright and responsible citizen, who cares if he has a gun? If your neighbor is a complete whackjob and criminal, you sure as Shinola care if he has a gun. Armed neighbors aren't a problem, dangerous ones are. The same logic applies to nations.

"Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow," Ebadi told the Post. "Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

It's a profound and fundamental point. We've gotten many such promises from the North Koreans. They are worthless. Promises from oppressive regimes cannot be trusted any more than promises from Tony Soprano could be. If a government is willing to betray its own people on a daily basis, what makes anyone think that it won't betray its geopolitical adversaries?

A democratic Iran, Ebadi says, would be unlikely to pursue a nuclear program. The Iranian people fear sanctions more than the country's corrupt, economically insulated rulers do. Moreover, the Iranian regime needs nukes for its own survival. The Iranian people may like the prestige of being a member of the nuclear club, but they aren't eager to pay any price to join. More important, the Iranian people aren't interested in preserving the current regime, as has been demonstrated by the historic protests this summer.

But even if Iran did go nuclear, who really cares as long as the nutty, messianic, totalitarian leadership is gone? A stable, democratic regime concerned with economic growth and normalcy might not be perfect, but which sort of government would you rather see in charge of nuclear weapons?

Democracy is not necessarily a cure-all. Palestinians in Gaza held elections and swept Hamas to power. But the Iranians aren't Gazans. And while America is despised by most nations in the region, the U.S. is actually popular with the Iranian people.

Ebadi doesn't want America to topple the Iranian regime the way it toppled Saddam Hussein's. Or, if she does, she's certainly smart enough not to say so outright, given that her family is under constant surveillance by Iranian authorities. What she wants is for America to get its priorities straight. Iran, which has been sponsoring terror for 30 years, is a threat because the Iranian regime is a threat. Change the regime and the threat diminishes or vanishes instantaneously. We had a golden opportunity to accelerate regime change in June, but Obama blinked.

Enamored with the idea that "engagement" with evil will produce good, and convinced that a brutal, undemocratic regime is the legitimate representative of the Iranian people, Obama was slow to recognize the moral authority of the democracy movement. By the time he did say what he should have said at the outset, it was clear that his grudging and qualified support for the protestors had no steel to it. The Iranian regime recognized that it would have a free hand to murder and intimidate its own people in order to reconsolidate power after it stole the election. This was a sad moment for the leader of the free world. "Mr. Obama has extended the hand of friendship to a man who has blood on his hands," Ebadi told the Post. "He can at least avoid shaking the hand of friendship with him."

There are rumors -- unconfirmed at this point -- that the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei, is either dead or in a coma. If true, the resulting power vacuum might give Obama the chance for a do-over. That is, if he's interested in earning a peace prize, not just winning one.