Pres. Obama's Muslim heritage

When Barack Obama ran for president, the possibility that he was a Muslim -- because his father was Muslim and he attended a Muslim school as a child -- was a big issue for some voters. His campaign denied that he was in any way, shape or form a Muslim.
Americans still with the 9/11 terrorist attacks still fresh in their minds, and many of them with family members serving on foreign soil in the military, fighting mainly Muslims, didn't want to hear about the "Muslim heritage" of a man running for the highest political office in the land. It was a political liability for Obama then.
But this week Obama is touring the Middle East, speaking to huge crowds of Muslims. These Muslims have, many of them, never seen an American face-to-face and have only hatred for our nation. That makes for a fertile breeding ground for terrorism that can be directed against us. Many young Muslims are easily swayed by persuasive speakers among their own people to take action against us, by becoming suicide bombers or joining with our enemies in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine.
In such an environment, Obama's background is seen not as a liability, but an asset. In his speech in Cairo today, he pointed out that he is not the only American with a Muslim background. In fact, he said, 7 million Americans claim to be Muslim.
Using his "Muslim heritage" as a tool to reach out to potential enemies of the United States is to be expected.
Just because he denied that heritage as a candidate, and promotes it now as a "statesman abroad" is not, to my mind, being duplicitous, but rather just part of being a politician. Stressing what draws one together with others is the greatest part of diplomacy. You have to let people of other nations see you're human...just like them.
The problem that stands out to me is not Obama claiming his once-rejected Muslim background, but his seemingly naive trust of our enemies.
According to the BBC account of Mr. Obama's speech, he does not plan to oppose Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, and even appeared to concede that they have a right to nuclear bombs. My heart skipped a beat at that.
The BBC's website states, "On the Iranian nuclear issue, Mr Obama said: 'No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons' and said Iran had the right to peaceful nuclear power."
If we permit Iran to attain to "nuclear weapons" and then maybe Sudan, and then maybe every 3rd world nation around the globe that can afford to hire a laid-off Russian scientist... Is there safety for anyone anywhere? It is very Democratic of Mr. Obama to want everyone to have a fair share of Mutually Assured Destruction, but is it wise?
And then, to top it off, it was announced this week that Iranian diplomats are being invited to visit U.S. embassies for the Fourth of July.
This announcement reminded me of the story of King Hezekiah in the 39th chapter of Isaiah. A contingent of diplomats from a little known country in a distant corner of the world came to visit the king and offer their expressions of concern for his recent sickness. And the king, in the pride of all he had achieved, showed them everything he had, even down to the precious things in his treasury. The prophet Isaiah told him when he heard of it that those men would return and ravage his nation one day. Those men were from a little-known country lying along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. They came from Babylon. Israel was destroyed by them.
It may be politically correct to trust your enemies. But is it wise?