Analysts' note:  Yes!  This pertains to Mr. Barack Hussein Obama and a number of his "useful idiots."   Also see Iran’s pursuit of the Islamic bomb invites copycats.

******

A wise group of Founding Fathers memorialized a document two plus centuries ago that has served us well. Within the U.S. Constitution's framework, repeated challenges to authority have been peacefully resolved-a living testimonial to its authors and their collective foresight.

During this time, our Nation has borne witness to a wide range of presidencies, running the gamut from weak to strong, and memorable to not-so-memorable. All, save one, have focused on preserving our national security as a top priority.

Some presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, proved severely misguided. He pressured Iran's Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to step down in 1979, paving the way for the return of exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini-a move severely undermining U.S. national security interests for almost two generations now. However, no one has claimed he acted intentionally to harm U.S. national security interests, but that he moved instead in the mistaken belief that America's role as a beacon of human dignity mandated it be done.

Carter believed Khomeini to be a Mahatma Gandhi who would bring dignity to the Iranian people; unfortunately, Khomeini proved to be Atila the Hun-murdering his own people in the name of "peaceful" Islam. The Ayatollah's rampage as judge, jury and executioner saw tens of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered. Today we still feel the sting of Carter's actions as Iran has become the world's greatest exporter of terrorism.

A stark difference exists between our first president, George Washington, and our current one. Having fought a war to win America's freedom, Washington was committed to a U.S. Constitution that would enable a republic to function without falling under the dark shadow of authoritarian rule, preserving the national security at all cost.

Interestingly, passionate followers of Washington suggested he be coronated as king rather than run for election as president. He refused, recognizing the course he set for America's ship of state should be one constantly preserving the greater good of the people. An unbroken chain of U.S. presidents have kept the ship on that same course ever since, until 2008.

Today, George Washington must be rolling over in his grave in disbelief of Barack Obama's imperial "reign." Never before in our history has a single president done so much to undermine the Constitution's mandate, taking unto himself authorities never intended by that sacred document. He does so suggesting he, more so than our Founding Fathers, knows best.

Kings make their own laws. Obama, therefore, confessed to being one on November 25th when he acknowledged about his executive order granting de facto amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, "I just took an action to change the law."

But more disturbing is Obama's simultaneous undertaking to undermine our national security interests-again as it relates to Iran. His bravado in admitting what he has allowed Iran to do is an outright admission he has deceived the American people and a major Middle Eastern ally. Missing from Obama's persona is the honest and moral character of our first president who never lost sight of the peoples' right to govern and the preservation our national security.

Obama's deception of his countrymen in dealing with Iran, among other things, began even before he was elected to office. In a mission that can only be described as incredulous, if not illegal, Obama dispatched Ambassador William G. Miller on a secret mission to Tehran. He informed the mullahs he was their friend, he would be elected president and, upon taking office, he would reveal a "kinder, gentler" approach to American negotiations on a nuclear deal.

In an October 2, 2014 article on the matter, foreign policy analyst Michael Ledeen said about Obama's Iran mission both then and today, "The central theme in Obama's outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East."

Despite the fact relations between the U.S. and Iran during the final year of George W. Bush's presidency were in a continuing downward spiral, Obama, by sending Miller to Tehran, was a U.S. citizen conducting American foreign policy--an act in contravention of U.S. law.

It is baffling as to why Obama would even feel it necessary to order such a mission. It was as if he feared some last minute concession might be made to the Bush government by Tehran, denying Obama an opportunity to gain credit for it, and thus sought to ensure it did not happen.

Undoubtedly, the mullahs saw Obama's mission as a Neville Chamberlainesque "gift from Allah," providing Tehran with a vehicle by which to ultimately complete its nuclear arms program. It further explains why the mullahs have failed to honor any agreement deadline as Obama simply gave them no motivation to do so.

After Obama took office and deadline after deadline to halt Iran's nuclear arms program came and went, he assured us-and Israel-he would not allow Tehran to acquire a nuclear arms capability. Six years later, Obama is no closer to an agreement with Iran on its nukes while Iran is much closer to gaining a nuclear arsenal.

It was no surprise then, when the November 24, 2014 nuke agreement deadline for Iran also came and went. It was met with yet another agreement to agree in the future-this time July 2015-due to "significant gaps" in positions between the two sides. Meanwhile, Iran continues to improve its cash flow by about $5 billion due to Obama's continuing earlier reduced sanctions and to avoid being bothered by U.S. demands for on-site inspections at sites Tehran has been scrubbing to clear of radiation traces.These significant gaps in the Iran/U.S. positions will be no closer to being bridged seven months from now than they are today.

As Tehran continues to deceive the West as to its nuclear arms intentions, Obama continues to deceive Americans about them as well-including the fact Iran has now built, not one as feared, but two nuclear test chambers.

If the mullahs drank, they would be popping champagne at the news of the seven month extension. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari is jubilant, bragging: "The Americans have very clearly surrendered to Iran's might, and this is obvious in their behavior in the region and the negotiations."

Surrendered? With Obama at the helm, we have never been in the fight. Despite four kumbaya missives to Iran's leadership during his time in office, the silver-tonged Obama has unsurprisingly (to everyone but him) been unable to garner any cooperation to reach a deal. Action by the Israelis now is the only viable option for stopping Iran.

What is surprising, however, is the Obama Administration's open admission as to what its negotiating efforts have now effectively accomplished concerning a nuclear-armed Iran.  A White House official, almost gleefully, acknowledged the White House had convincingly and intentionally, by assuring them and Israel the world would never see a nuclear-armed Iran, been misleading the American people. It appears Obama's policy has always been one of contrary intent despite his promises otherwise.

One could argue that Obama's actions, both as a candidate and as president, cross the line of treason. They have clearly served to "aid and comfort" an Iranian enemy.

Historically, the one act giving rise to a claim of treason is betrayal--initially of one's people--and has always been deemed the worst of crimes. The claim of high treason later attached to the leader of the people--the king--with the severity of such a crime reflected by a brutally harsh death sentence. Today, the claim attaches to the government and, while execution is still an option, civil society has toned down significantly brutality of the sentence.

Only one president in U.S. history was ever investigated for treason. After Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor catapulted America into World War II, questions arose over what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) really knew in advance about it since the Japanese code had been broken earlier. Concerns arose he knew of the planned attack but chose to ignore it so as to rally a reluctant American public into entering the war. Several investigations ensued but FDR was absolved of any wrongdoing.

The question of FDR's loyalty to country in World War II occurred over a single act of omission by him. The question of Obama's loyalty, however, arises over several matters of commission to help an enemy committed to our destruction.

The claim of treason originally arose within the context of a plot against the king. One can only wonder if Emperor Obama has become so enamored of his power he believes he cannot, therefore, commit treason against himself. King or not, many believe Obama has committed treason against the American people.

Obama has proven reluctant in the past to take foreign policy action against those crossing lines he himself imposed. We should not prove similarly reluctant to take action against him for crossing our lines.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), is a retired Marine infantry officer who served in the Vietnam war, the U.S. invasion of Panama and the first Gulf war. He is the author of "Bare Feet, Iron Will--Stories from the Other Side of Vietnam's Battlefields," "Living the Juche Lie: North Korea's Kim Dynasty" and "Doomsday: Iran--The Clock is Ticking." He frequently writes on foreign policy and defense issues.