October is traditionally the time for harvest festivals in communities throughout the US and here in Britain. In fact, the word “harvest” comes from Old English hærfest, meaning “autumn.”

I have just taken a ride on the combine harvester cutting wheat on my farm in Northumberland. It is such a sophisticated threshing machine that long gone are the days when I could be trusted to take the controls during the lunch break.

A screen showed how the GPS was steering it, inch-perfect and hands-free, along the edge of the unharvested crop; another screen gave an instant readout of the yield. It was averaging over five tons (kilotons, 1,000 kilos or 2,200 lbs) per acre (or 12 tons per hectare) — a record.

This is Precision Farming. It and other hi-tech developments have resulted in the Food and Agriculture Organization’s food price index now well below where it was throughout the 1960s and 1970s: that is to say, it’s proving cheaper and easier to feed seven billion today than it was to feed three billion in 1960. And on much less land. The Eco-Doomsters are of course unhappy.

There are several scenarios the Obama administration may be entertaining as it pursues its diplomacy in the Middle East.

It may believe that the new agreement with Iran will lead to “engagement” with reform-minded theocrats. Or perhaps an Obama-inspired second green revolution will overthrow the regime.

Alternatively, the administration may imagine that a Shiite Axis — Iran, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, Hamas — empowered by Putin’s Russia, will balance the region.

Or, the United States may simply wish to abdicate the Middle East and let the players there all fight it out, reentering when the players are worn out and defeated.

All these scenarios are probably fantasies. In truth, the deal will make the world a much more dangerous place. Here are five reasons why.

Last week the Obama administration was caught off guard by Russia’s rapid rise in Syria.

As the Russians began bombing a US-supported militia along the Damascus-Homs highway, Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, at the UN. Just hours before their meeting Kerry was insisting that Russia’s presence in Syria would likely be a positive development.

Putin understands the opportunity of the moment. He views the decomposition of Syria as an opportunity to rebuild Russia’s power and influence in the Middle East – at America’s expense.

Unlike Mr. Putin however, Barack Hussein Obama is moved not by power calculations rooted in reality but by ideological dictates. Thus
Obama’s position cannot be swayed by evidence, even when evidence shows that his delusional policies endanger US national security.

This brings us to Israel. It too has leaders who are delusional – and you’d be very surprised to learn who they are.

No government has the blood of more American soldiers on its hands today than the government of Iran. From Lebanon to Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia to Iraq, Iran has been killing American soldiers for decades.

241 in Beirut. 19 at the Khobar Towers. Over 500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last time the United States officially fought Iran was under Reagan. But Iran has never stopped killing Americans. There is no reason to believe that it will stop once it has the nuclear weapons that Obama is helping its leaders obtain.

Obama has not merely appeased Iran out of fear; he sympathizes with its anti-American grievances. As he told his negotiators, Iran’s rulers feel “vulnerable” because of how America “meddled” in “their democracy” and that its anti-Americanism is a “defensive” reaction to “avoid repeats of the past.”

Obama identifies with the anti-American resentments of Muslim terrorists instead of the suffering of their victims. His foreign policy has been based on empowering the enemies of the United States to turn their grievances into a “defense” against American influence and intervention.

This isn’t just Chamberlain. It’s Vidkun Quisling and Philippe Pétain. It’s not bad judgment. It’s treason. Treason that could result in the nuclear death of millions of Americans.

Hillary Clinton has spent a third of her adult life trying to become president. All for nothing.

The first time around, she wasted $200 million just to lose to Obama. $11 million of that money came from the notoriously "flat broke" couple. This time around she was determined to take no chances.

Together with her husband she built up a massive war chest using money from foreign governments and speaking fees from non-profits, funneled into her own dirty non-profit and a complex network of unofficial organizations staffed by Clinton loyalists, secured an unofficial endorsement from Obama, and carefully avoided answering questions or taking positions on anything.

There was no way she could lose. Now she’s losing all over again. The only lesson that Hillary Clinton drew from her last election try was to double down on all the things she did wrong. Let’s itemize them.