OBAMA DOES NOT APPEAR TO BELIEVE IRAN IS A THREAT

Why else would he oppose designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization?

From Ed Morrissey:

... he (Obama) has managed to get to Dick Durbin’s left in opposing an
amendment that urged the State Department to name Iran’s Revolutionary Guard
Corps a terrorist organization, which passed despite Obama’s objections:

The story begins nine months ago, when the Senate took up debate on the
so-called Kyl-Lieberman amendment–a bipartisan measure that urged the U.S.
government to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign
Terrorist Organization and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist.

These designations are more than just rhetorical; labeling the IRGC as a
terrorist organization brings to bear a range of powerful sanctions that crack
down on its ability to work in the global financial system.The proximate cause
of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was a growing dossier of evidence from General
David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, documenting the IRGC’s role in
financing, training, arming, and directing extremists in Iraq responsible for
the murder of hundreds of American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Of course, that’s not the full extent of the IRGC’s malign influence. The
group is an acknowledged supporter of terror (a fact even Senator Obama
concedes), training, financing and arming Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic
Jihad and most recently, the Taliban. At home in Iran, the IRGC now dominates
the regime, with 9 out of 21 seats in the Ahmadinejad cabinet held by former
IRGC and IRGC-affiliated officials. The IRGC is also a vital player in Iran’s
licit and illicit economies, and dominates important sectors like
construction.

Needless to say, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment won broad support in the
Senate, passing 76-22. Senator Hillary Clinton voted for it, as did Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Senator Dick
Durbin.Senator Obama, however, was one of a handful of senators who opposed the
amendment–which had aroused the ire of the left-wing blogosphere. In the
frenzied minds of DailyKos and Moveon.org, Kyl-Lieberman–or “Lieberman-Kyl,” as they
preferred to call it–was nothing less than a stealth declaration of war on
Iran.

The offending clause (a non-binding Sense of the Senate) suggests that the
U.S. military presence in Iraq “will have critical long-term consequences for
the future of the Persian Gulf.” It emphatically does not suggest either that we
“use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran,” as Senator
Obama’s website falsely claims, or that “we should maintain our forces in Iraq
with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence,” as Senator Obama frets.

That reading of the amendment is incomprehensible to most, including
Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois and one of Obama’s chief supporters.
“It’s rare that Barack and I disagree on an issue of this magnitude,” Durbin
told Bloomberg Television at the time. “I have the same concerns that Barack
Obama does about this administration and what they might do with the power that
they have. But I don’t think this resolution gives them a green light to do
anything.”

This misreading of the amendment speaks to a larger, deliberate obtuseness
on Obama’s part. The Iranians are the largest sponsor of international terrorism
in the world, and the evidence of this is both public and large. In order to
fight terrorism, we need to at least honestly acknowledge Iran’s role in it and
take steps to limit it. Kyl-Lieberman attempted to do just that in a non-violent
manner, working through other options intended to limit their ability to fund
terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

There are only two reasons to oppose the application of sanctions on Iran.
Either one wants to go to war and skip all of the other options, or doesn’t
believe Iran to be a threat and a sponsor of terror. Into which group should we
put Barack Obama?

I think we can safely say that he belongs in the latter group.

I think we could also entertain a third reason for why Obama would oppose such sanctions. It is possible that he opposes all aggressive action against the Muslim Ummah.

The evidence seems to point in that direction, doesn't it?