Archive for the ‘Diplomacy’ category
October 11, 2015
Does the PA have a strategy? Israel Hayom, Richard Baehr, October 11, 2015
Abbas may sense that a reconciliation between Israel and the Obama administration is not at hand this time around. The obvious and petty boycott of Netanyahu’s speech at the U.N. certainly supports that thesis. This president carries grudges. In Israel’s case, he seems to have come into office carrying one. With the president in full-time legacy-building mode in his last 16 months in office (the climate treaty and executive action on gun control are next up), it is hard to believe that he will simply accept defeat and an inability to influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the time he has left.
************************
A third intifada has not yet been officially designated by Haaretz or The New York Times or National Public Radio, though it may feel as if one is underway, when over 60% of Israelis in the latest public opinion survey say they now fear for their personal safety. So too, there is no evidence yet that the wave of Palestinian attacks or — new to this current campaign — the attempted mass crossings from Gaza, have peaked.
Certainly, the reporting on the current events in Israel reflects old habits about how most journalists cover stories of Palestinian violence and Israeli responses. Two standbys always work. One if that there is “a cycle of violence” ( a pox on both your houses), always leaving unclear who the original perpetrators were in an individual attack or group of attacks. A second is to keep a daily scorecard of the comparative body counts, especially when there are more Palestinian casualties and fatalities than Israeli, courtesy of Israeli police or soldiers responding to stabbing attacks, not all of which prove lethal before the attacker is neutralized. This narrative leads to the inevitable charge of disproportionality, one that has become the principal media assault on Israeli responses to terror emanating from Gaza in recent years. As in every other instance in recent years, Haaretz is playing its appointed role of feeding the many international journalists in the country with the “truth in English” as it sees it, and as the international media want to receive and see it, confirming all their established biases about Israel behavior.
For Israeli responses to the current violence to be “fair” and proportional, the comparative Jewish and Arab body counts would need to be more in balance than in prior years. When the current campaign of attacks on Israelis began, The New York Times relegated the story to it its interior pages. Once a few Palestinians were killed by Israeli police, the story became front page news.
Any attack on Arabs by an Israeli is always highlighted since it removes any attempt by Israel to argue it is the victim of attacks. It also buttresses the PA’s charges that Israelis, whether in security roles or settlers, are willing executioners, committing crimes against Palestinians. Regardless of how infrequent these individual attacks by Israelis are, they serve to solidify the cycle of violence theme. The Israeli government can condemn these attacks and capture the perpetrators, but it makes no difference. The PA, meanwhile, will applaud the heroism of their new martyrs protecting the holy places on the Temple Mount from an invasion of stinking Jewish filth.
The current wave of Arab attacks followed a Palestinian Authority incitement campaign with language such as that above, in which President Mahmoud Abbas, seemingly the president for life, though only elected to a four year term, condemned Israel’s campaign to change the status of the Temple Mount, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, probably in seclusion and being treated with antidepressants since being denied the Nobel Peace Prize for his abject surrender to the Iranians in Geneva, has acknowledged to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Americans understand there is no Israeli effort underway to reshape any policy regarding behavior on the Temple Mount. Kerry can probably blame Yasser Arafat’s Nobel Peace Prize for the peace prize medal he did not receive (and likely would not have tossed away). The selection committee was probably not anxious to have the Iranians make them look like fools in years to come once they violated the nuclear deal as Arafat tossed Oslo aside when it was inconvenient.
The naked demagoguery of Abbas’ continually repeated lies about Israeli plans for the Temple Mount will always have the desired affect on the many young men on whom the PA can depend to take to the streets and do their part to protect the ”holy places” for a fee. While there is no consensus on the degree of PA control over the attacks, the Palestinians certainly know where their rhetoric leads.
The question, though, is why the Palestinians have chosen this point in time to overheat the situation, resulting in the loss of both Israeli and Palestinian lives.
The answer offered by most analysts so far is that the PA wanted to draw international attention back to its grievances with Israel, which most basically begins with the continued existence of the State of Israel. For many months, relations between Israel and the United States, never very good at any time during the Obama years, have become much more fractious as a result of the disagreement between the two countries over the wisdom of America’s spearheading the effort to make all the concessions required as achieve the nuclear deal with Iran by the P5+1 group of nations.
In prior administrations, when relations between the two countries hit a rough patch over some policy disagreement, typically there was an effort made by both parties to try to restore the historic relationship. In the Obama years, the White House has had problems with Israel on pretty much everything — whether to impose new sanctions on Iran, inhibiting Israeli steps targeting Iran’s nuclear program, the nuclear deal itself, and of course the peace process with the Palestinians, the breakdown of which was blamed on Israel by the administration. In no prior administration has the public rhetoric and off-the-record commentary about Israel and its elected leader been so consistently hostile. A boycott of Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress was supported by the administration, which pulled Vice President Joe Biden from attendance. Near a quarter of all Democrats in Congress chose to observe the boycott. The administration doubled down on its boycott campaign when Kerry and Ambassador Samantha Power were instructed not to attend Netanyahu’s recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly. It makes sense that the president has never condemned the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns targeting Israel on American college campuses. He would probably be leading them if he were now a student.
In any case, Abbas may sense that a reconciliation between Israel and the Obama administration is not at hand this time around. The obvious and petty boycott of Netanyahu’s speech at the U.N. certainly supports that thesis. This president carries grudges. In Israel’s case, he seems to have come into office carrying one. With the president in full-time legacy-building mode in his last 16 months in office (the climate treaty and executive action on gun control are next up), it is hard to believe that he will simply accept defeat and an inability to influence the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the time he has left.
Abbas has resorted to the strategy that always works to get his cause back in the news — get some of his people killed by Israel, and blame it on Israeli over-reaction and trigger-happy behavior. Maybe Obama will then show his disgust with Israel and commit to not vetoing new measures targeting Israel at the U.N. Security Council, including establishing a plan for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem.
It is also possible that Obama planned to lower the temperature of the American-Israeli relationship now that the Iran deal had not been blocked by Congress. The prime minister had been invited to the White House next month, and reportedly the president planned to show up. If Abbas thought this was the new glide path, then throwing a monkey wrench into the mix with new violence would certainly complicate things. Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, gave a particularly awful response when questioned about the new wave of Palestinian violence this week, suggesting he had not been advised to turn any page:
“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians. We call upon all parties to take affirmative steps to restore calm and refrain from actions and rhetoric that would further enflame tensions in that region of the world. We continue to urge all sides to find a way back to the full restoration of the status quo at the Temple Mount in Haram al-Sharif, the location that has precipitated so much of the violence that we’ve seen there.”
In other words, both sides are guilty for attacking the other’s civilians, and somehow a change in the status of the Temple Mount (Israel’s doing) was the root cause of the new problems.
When the administration’s top spokesperson makes this kind of comment, do you think Abbas will decide to ease up on the violence accelerator?
Categories: Appeasement, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Filthy Jews, Foreign policy, Hamas, Islamic culture, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Israeli media, Kerry, Netanyahu, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's anti-semitism, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Obama's weakness, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Settlements, Two state solution, Western media
Tags: Appeasement, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Filthy Jews, Foreign Policy, Hamas, Islamic culture, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Israeli media, Kerry, Netanyahu, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's anti-semitism, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Obama's weakness, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Settlements, Two state solution, Western media
Comments: Be the first to comment
October 6, 2015
Prominent Iranian Analyst Amir Taheri: Unlike Kennedy, Nixon And Reagan, Who Drove A Hard Bargain In Negotiations With Enemies, Obama Is Capitulating And Chasing Illusions In Deal With Iran, Middle East Media Research Institute, October 5, 2015
In an opinion piece published August 25, 2015 in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri, a prominent Iranian analyst, author and columnist, compared Obama’s policy towards Iran to the policies of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan in their dealings with the U.S.’s main rivals in their day – the USSR and China. Taheri wrote that, in making the deal with Iran, Obama wishes to portray himself as an heir to the tradition established by these presidents of defusing conflict through diplomacy and negotiations. He noted, however, that these leaders negotiated from a position of strength, and pursued a detente with America’s enemies only after the latter had fulfilled important American demands and changed key elements of their policies. For example, Kennedy negotiated with the USSR only after forcing it to remove the nuclear sites from Cuba; Nixon’s normalization with China came only after the latter had turned its back on the Cultural Revolution and abandoned its project of exporting communism, and Reagan engaged with the Soviets only after taking military measures to counter the threat they posed to Europe. Moreover, says Taheri, the U.S. warmed its relations with China and the USSR only after they abandoned their absolute enmity towards it and began regarding it as a rival and competitor rather than a mortal enemy that must be destroyed.
Conversely, says Taheri, Obama demanded nothing of the Iranians before commencing negotiations, not even the release of U.S. hostages. Moreover, he pursued rapprochement with Iran despite the absence of any positive change in this country’s hardline policies and ideologies. On the contrary, America’s overtures only encouraged Iran’s worst tendencies, as reflected in a sharp rise in human rights violations within Iran and in its continued support for terror groups and for Assad’s regime in Syria. The detente with America did not even cause Iran to abandon its calls of death to America, Taheri notes. He concludes “Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary,” whereas “Obama is responding positively to his own illusions.”
The following are excerpts from his article:
Amir Taheri (Image: Twitter.com/amirtaheri4)
JFK Forced Russia To Remove Its Missiles From Cuba; Obama Obtained Nothing Tangible And Verifiable
“Promoting the ‘deal’ he claims he has made with Iran, President Barack Obama is trying to cast himself as heir to a tradition of ‘peace through negotiations’ followed by US presidents for decades. In that context he has named Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as shining examples, with the subtext that he hopes to join their rank in history.
“Obama quotes JFK as saying one should not negotiate out of fear but should not be afraid of negotiating either. To start with, those who oppose the supposed ‘deal’ with Iran never opposed negotiations; they oppose the result it has produced… In one form or another, Iran and the major powers have been engaged in negotiations on the topic since 2003. What prompted Obama to press the accelerator was his desire to score a diplomatic victory before he leaves office. It did not matter if the ‘deal’ he concocted was more of a dog’s dinner than a serious document. He wanted something, anything , and to achieve that he was prepared to settle for one big diplomatic fudge.
“Is Obama the new JFK? Hardly. Kennedy did negotiate with the USSR but only after he had blockaded Cuba and forced Nikita Khrushchev to blink and disband the nuclear sites he had set up on the Caribbean island. In contrast, Obama obtained nothing tangible and verifiable. Iran’s Atomic Energy chief Ali-Akbar Salehi put it nicely when he said that the only thing that Iran gave Obama was a promise ‘not to do things we were not doing anyway, or did not wish to do or could not even do at present.’
“JFK also had the courage to fly to West Berlin to face the Soviet tanks and warn Moscow against attempts at overrunning the enclave of freedom that Germany’s former capital had become. With his ‘Ich bin ein Berliner‘ (I am a citizen of Berlin), he sided with the people of the besieged city in a long and ultimately victorious struggle against Soviet rule. In contrast Obama does not even dare call on the mullahs to release the Americans they hold hostage. Instead, he has engaged in an epistolary courting of the Supreme Guide and instructed his administration in Washington to do and say nothing that might ruffle the mullahs’ feathers.
Nixon Extracted Far-Reaching Concessions From China; Obama Has Only Encouraged The Worst Tendencies Of The Khomeinist Regime
“No, Obama is no JFK. But is he heir to Nixon? Though he hates Nixon ideologically, Obama has tried to compare his Iran ‘deal’ with Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Again, the comparison is misplaced. Normalization with Beijing came after the Chinese leaders had sorted out their internal power struggle and decided to work their way out of the ideological impasse created by their moment of madness known as The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The big bad wolf of the tale, Lin Biao, was eliminated in an arranged air crash and the Gang of Four defanged before the new leadership set-up in Beijing could approach Washington with talk of normalization.
“At the time the Chinese elite, having suffered defeat in border clashes with the USSR, saw itself surrounded by enemies, especially after China’s only ally Pakistan had been cut into two halves in an Indo-Soviet scheme that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Hated by all its neighbors, China needed the US to break out of isolation. Even then, the Americans drove a hard bargain. They set a list of 22 measures that Beijing had to take to prove its goodwill, chief among them was abandoning the project of ‘exporting revolution’.
“Those of us who, as reporters, kept an eye on China and visited the People’s Republic in those days were astonished at the dramatic changes the Communist leaders introduced in domestic and foreign policies to please the Americans. In just two years, China ceased to act as a ’cause’ and started behaving like a nation-state. It was only then that Nixon went to Beijing to highlight a long process of normalization. In the case of Iran, Obama has obtained none of those things. In fact, his ‘deal’ has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Khomeinist regime as symbolized by dramatic rise in executions, the number of prisoners of conscience and support for terror groups not to mention helping Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.
Reagan Had No Qualms About Calling The USSR ‘The Evil Empire’; Obama Is Scared Of Offending The Mullahs
“No, Obama is no Nixon. But is he a new Reagan as he pretends? Hardly. Reagan was prepared to engage the Soviets at the highest level only after he had convinced them that they could not blackmail Europe with their SS20s while seeking to expand their empire through so-called revolutionary movements they sponsored across the globe. The SS20s were countered with Pershing missiles and ‘revolutionary’ armies with Washington-sponsored ‘freedom fighters.’
“Unlike Obama who is scared of offending the mullahs, Reagan had no qualms about calling the USSR ‘The Evil Empire’ and castigating its leaders on issues of freedom and human rights. The famous phrase ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!’ indicated that though he was ready to negotiate, Reagan was not prepared to jettison allies to clinch a deal.
“Obama has made no mention of Jimmy Carter, the US president he most resembles. However, even Carter was not as bad as Obama if only because he was prepared to boycott the Moscow Olympics to show his displeasure at the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also tried to do something to liberate US hostages in Tehran by organizing an invasion of the Islamic Republic with seven helicopters. The result was tragicomic; but he did the best his meagre talents allowed. (NB: No one is suggesting Obama should invade Iran if only because if he did the results would be even more tragicomic than Carter’s adventure.)
“On a more serious note, it is important to remember that dealing with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is quite different from dealing with the USSR and China was in the context of detente and normalization. Neither the USSR nor the People’s Republic regarded the United States as ‘enemy’ in any religious context as the Khomeinist regime does. Moscow branded the US, its ‘Imperialist’ rival, as an ‘adversary’ (protivnik) who must be fought and, if possible, defeated, but not as a ‘foe’ (vrag) who must be destroyed. In China, too, the US was attacked as ‘arch-Imperialist’ or ‘The Paper Tiger’ but not as a mortal foe. The slogan was ‘Yankee! Go Home!'”
China And USSR Moderated Their Virulent Hate For U.S,; In Iran The Slogan Is Still ‘Death To America’
“In the Khomeinist regime, however, the US is routinely designated as ‘foe’ (doshman) in a religious context and the slogan is ‘Death to America!’ Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has no qualms about calling for the ‘destruction’ of America, as final step towards a new global system under the banner of his twisted version of Islam. Tehran is the only place where international ‘End of America’ conferences are held by the government every year. The USSR and China first cured themselves of their version of the anti-American disease before seeking detente and normalization. That did not mean they fell in love with the US. What it meant was that they learned to see the US as adversary, rival, or competitor not as a mortal foe engaged in a combat-to-death contest. The Islamic Republic has not yet cured itself of that disease and Obama’s weakness may make it even more difficult for that cure to be applied.
“Détente with the USSR and normalization with China came after they modified important aspects of their behavior for the better. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary. In the case of the USSR positive change started with the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin’s crimes, purged the party of its nastiest elements, notably Lavrentiy Beria, and rehabilitated millions of Stalin’s victims.
“In foreign policy, Khrushchev, his swashbuckling style notwithstanding, accepted the new architecture of stability in Cold War Europe based on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy, Johnson and, later, Nixon and President Gerald Ford had to respond positively. In the late1980s, the USSR offered other positive evolutions through Glasnost and Perestroika and final withdrawal from Afghanistan under Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Reagan and President George Bush (the father) had to respond positively.
“In the case of China we have already noted the end of the Cultural Revolution. But China also agreed to help the US find a way to end the Vietnam War. Beijing stopped its almost daily provocations against Taiwan and agreed that the issue of the island-nation issue be kicked into the long grass. Within a decade, under Deng Xiaoping, China went even further by adopting capitalism as its economic system.
“There is one other difference between the cases of the USSR and China in the 1960s to 1990s and that of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran today. The USSR had been an ally of the United States during the Second World War and its partner in setting up the United Nations in 1945. Although rivals and adversaries, the two nations also knew when to work together when their mutual interests warranted it. The same was true of the Chinese Communist Party which had been an ally of the US and its Chinese client the Kuomintang during the war against Japanese occupation when Edgar Snow was able to describe Mao Zedong as ‘America’s staunchest ally against the Japanese Empire.’ In the 1970s, Washington and Beijing did not find it strange to cooperate in containing the USSR, their common rival-cum-adversary as they had done when countering Japan.
“In the case of the Islamic Republic there is no sign of any positive change and certainly no history of even tactical alliance with the US.
“Unless he knows something that we do not, Obama is responding positively to his own illusions.”
Categories: Death to America, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Iran scam, Khamenei, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's weakness, P5+1
Tags: Death to America, Diplomacy, Iran Scam, Khamenei, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's weakness, P5+1
Comments: 4 Comments
October 3, 2015
Persia, Putin and the Pansy, Times of Israel, Irwin G. Blank, October 3, 2015
(Guess the name of the Pansy. But please see, The Moscow-Washington-Tehran Axis of Evil. — DM)
Putin, a product of the Soviet Communist system is well acquainted with the dictum of the father of the Bolshevik revolution that gave birth to the regime that he so faithfully served. V. I. Lenin’s famous quote-” Probe with a bayonet. If you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.”
***************************
In ancient times there was no greater empire than that of Persia. This imperial power stretched from the mountains of Afghanistan all the way to the islands of Greece and the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East. Against the Greeks of Alexander the Great, it could field armies of millions of troops arrayed with the most modern weapons of war at the time. Until the rise of the Roman Empire, no power on Earth, made nations tremble as did the rulers of Persia.
Today the fanatic Ayatollahs in Teheran, with a megalomaniacal apocalyptic dream of Islamist imperialism and world conquest under their banner of jihad are hell bent on the recreation of their ancient empire and the destruction of all they see as infidels and unbelievers. Their conception of faith is a political and social fanaticism that goes even further than the hysterical rantings and horrendous nightmare that Nazi Germany once attempted to foist on mankind. Indeed, the very Nazi terminology for its origin, the word “Aryan” is associated with the nation whose name is a derivative of that racist term-Iran.
However, other than employing proxy allies in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, the mad mullahs knew that their military, for all its goose stepping soldiers and bombast that they would require the tools necessary to fulfill their wicked aims. Firstly, it was able to build up a nuclear industry with the aim of developing the most lethal weapons of mass destruction. Through deception, deliberate obfuscation and diligent denial, it succeeded in the implantation of this atomic framework under the blindness of the international agency whose responsibility is to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, when its nefarious production methods and its open evidence of ballistic missile technology became apparent, Iran successfully parried the efforts to curtail its march toward nuclear weaponry by undertaking a Potemkin village of diplomacy whereby even the most seemingly astute diplomatically experienced national leaders, succumbed to the meanderings and sweetheart deal that Iranian negotiators engineered. The secrets of the Ayatollahs were swept under a Persian rug.
However, in the meantime, the Persian imperialist war mongers still were in great need of the assistance of a powerful ally in order to accomplish their more conventional aims in their desire to continue their conquest throughout the Middle East. What better place to seek this help than to another former empire builder than a nation which was chomping on the bit to return to an area of the globe from which it had been so unceremoniously evicted.
The former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation, has had dreams of installing its imperial presence in the Mediterranean Sea since the days of the Czars. Until 1972 when the late Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, evicted ( for the most part as a political move, not a military one) most of the Soviet personnel from his country, the USSR had been ensconced throughout Egypt and the Arab world. Indeed, it was the humiliating defeat of the Egyptian and Syrian forces by the Israel Defense Forces during the Yom Kippur War that demonstrated at that time, the weakness of the Soviet response to American supported Israel which was demonstrating the vapidness of the Soviet promise to come to the aid of its Arab allies. The US response to Soviet threats to directly intervene on behalf of its Egyptian and Syrian clients, by moving the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet towards the Syrian coast and the declaration of a higher war footing by all US forces, made the Soviets back down.
The political and military supported victory of American arms and diplomacy demonstrated the resolve of that world power to face down the threat of Soviet dominance in such a strategic region of Western interests. Not only did the diplomacy of Henry Kissinger and the Nixon White House make a shambles of the massive Soviet involvement in the Arab world, but it brought about the first true demarche of Soviet (Russian) imperial chicanery since the Berlin blockade of 1948 and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
But the Russian Federation today is led by a president whose demonstration of the old Russian imperial nightmare is alive and well. Vladimir Putin, a former high official of the dreaded KGB,( Soviet Secret Service) has no qualms about restoring the dreams of the Czars and the re-entrenchment of his nation’s appearance in the Middle East. As a significant power player on the world scene and a massive supplier of sophisticated arms to anyone who opposes Western influence anywhere on the planet, the situation in the Levant and the hysterical anti-American paranoia in Teheran led the Ayatollahs to the road towards Moscow.
Sending one of their highest ranking military official to Moscow was a masterstroke of diplomatic skullduggery in presenting Putin with a challenge and an opportunity he could not ignore, For here, he was presented with a silver platter with which to serve up a poisonous dish to his arch-rivals, America and NATO. After witnessing their weakness to confront his military in the Ukraine and the Crimea, as well as his bloody campaign in Chechnya, all Putin had to do was experience orgasmic delight in sending his sea and air forces into a disintegrating Syria and pour weapons by the shipload onto the docks of Bandar Abbas in Iran. In full sight of Western intelligence and American spy satellites, crate after crate of Soviet munitions were soon trundling off the piers of the Syrian port of Latakia.
Iran was facing a significant threat to its allies in that disintegrating country and witnessing the probable demise of its Syrian puppet, Bashar al-Assad. The forces of ISIS (an Iranian rival for control of the Islamic world) were on the march and its debilitating of the Syrian military as well as its capture of large swaths of Alawite controlled territory would put an end to the mullah’s plans for conquest. The entire northern tier of the Middle East would collapse and the Persian dream of conquering all the Sunni dominated lands of the region would go up in smoke. Iran had invested heavily in its subterfuge of the regimes of Iraq, Yemen and its military adventures in those countries. It required a strong ally and it looked to its northern neighbor with which its shares a common enmity for the West, and Putin, licked his chops and dove onto the plate presented to him.
Not only have Russian military forces seized control of the vital Syrian port of Latakia on the Mediterranean, but it has constructed revetments for air forces and ground personnel unseen in this region since the 1970s. His air forces have conducted bombing raids, not on ISIS, which was a planned political prevarication, but on US backed components of the anti-Assad coalition. Of course, Putin has no conflict with conducting airstrikes on civilians. After all, the West has been all but silent on the massive slaughter of approximately 300,000 civilians by the butcher of Damascus. Even when presented with irrefutable evidence of the use of internationally banned chemical weapons on his own countrymen, the US and NATO have been reticent (cowardly) in confronting this evil practice. Why not? The current leader of Syria’s father dropped poison gas on his own people in Homs when they revolted against his tyrannical rule and the world stood silent.
When the president of the United States declared that the Assad administration’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and force his hand – well, the red line turned into a yellow streak. The insipid and relatively weak assistance that this erstwhile leader of the world’s greatest superpower has shown to be the denigration and degradation of a once trusted and worthy ally. America’s allies no longer trust her and her enemies no longer fear her. It is not the American people who have lost their courage, it is their incompetently dangerous president and his minions that are responsible.
Not only for the rise of Russian/Iranian imperialism, but for its effect as daily demonstrated by the thousands, if not future hundreds of thousands, of men, women and children, fleeing from the murderous genocide of the Assad aided and abetted by this new Axis of evil-Islamic radicalism and Russian imperialism.
Iran seeks to conquer the Middle East and destroy the Sunni dominated Arab states of the region. With Russian assistance it will expand its imperial power behind Russian bayonets and the threat of its own nuclear umbrella to come. It is biding its time while innocents are being slaughtered and the threats against Israel, Jordan and Lebanon are unrelenting through public declarations and political oratory.
Putin, a product of the Soviet Communist system is well acquainted with the dictum of the father of the Bolshevik revolution that gave birth to the regime that he so faithfully served. V. I. Lenin’s famous quote-” Probe with a bayonet. If you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.”
The American president, who through Constitutional authority commands the most expansive and well trained military in the history of the world, who purports to be the defender of international human rights, has proven himself to be, in the face of wanton aggression and slaughter, in the abrogation of his country’s duty to defend its most vital and established interests, in his tepid response to evil and his recalcitrance to even identify the greatest threat to Western civilization since the rise of Nazi Germany, has without a doubt, at least in this writer’s estimate, become akin to an ostrich-a bird that buries its head in the sand and presents its foes with an irresistible target.
The Dictionary of American Slang has a word for such a person-a weakling and a wimp-the word is “pansy.” The pansy of the United States will bring the most terrible war upon us all-including by beloved tiny Jewish country.
Categories: Arab nations, Assad, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Free world, History, Iran, Iran - Middle East, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Israel, Middle East, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's anti-semitism, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Red Lines, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war, Russian Aggression, U.S. Military
Tags: Arab nations, Assad, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Free world, History, Iran, Iran - Middle East, Iran Scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Israel, Middle East, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's anti-semitism, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Red Lines, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war, Russian aggression, U.S. military
Comments: 4 Comments
October 3, 2015
Ban Ki-moon, Obama work to Humiliate Israel, Breitbart, Pamela Geller, October 3, 2015
Andrew Burton/Getty Images
There has been such a mass (or maybe mess is more fitting) of bad news this week that it is not surprising that a number of shocking news items fell through the cracks — which is always the case with the running dogs in the media when the news reflects so very dreadfully on the community organizer in the White House.
Barack Obama was upstaged, upended and usurped by Russia’s Vladimir Putin this week, when, in one fell swoop, by his actions in Syria and speech at the United Nations, Putin took over the leadership role in the Middle East. Once again, Obama was “caught off guard.” That has become the rallying cry of his presidency.
Obama’s response? To further humiliate and denigrate our one steadfast and true ally.
Breitbart News reported that Obama actually went so far as to call Secretary of State John Kerry and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, into a video conference just before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his historic and courageous speech to the UN General Assembly last Thursday.
The remnants of the U.S. delegation that did attend the speech pointedly did not applaud. The lowlife administration struck again. Obama was casting pearls before swine.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon broke protocol and summarily left when Netanyahu came to the lectern. Deputy UNSG Jan Eliasson slipped into the chair. The UN Secretary General is always present when a head of state addresses the General Assembly. But they broke the rule to humiliate the Jewish people. He left. There is no way that Ban Ki-moon would have shown such disrespect had he not been given the idea or, at the very least, the sanction, by the Jew-hater in the White House.
Why? Why would Obama publicly snub our tried and true ally in the hottest region in the world? Because he is evil. He embodies the hatred of the good for being the good.
Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin has seized the initiative. After announcing that it was beginning operations against the Islamic State (ISIS), Russia is bombing our allies, Bashar Assad’s enemies, in Syria — not ISIS at all. “It’s one thing for us to be humiliated, but another for it to be shown to the world,” said Charles Krauthammer.
Put a fork in him: Barack Obama is done, and he has taken the United States, our allies, and freedom-loving peoples around the world with him. Now that Putin has so thoroughly shown him up, Obama’s only option now is to grovel. And he is groveling assiduously.
Obama’s surrender to the Russians this week has overturned the order of the Middle East and, by extension, the order of the entire world. He relinquished American hegemony in the Middle East–right after paving the way for a nuclear Iran. Obama’s subordinate role to the Russians in the “deconfliction” talks was stunning. Putin had Obama begging for “deconfliction” talks–and how quickly he turned over the deconfliction codes!
Deconfliction codes keep aircraft or missions apart to reduce the likelihood of so-called friendly fire. Has America ever done that before? According to Daniel Dombey in the Financial Times: “Two prior administrations, one of which was seen to be extraordinarily favourably disposed toward anything Israel, declined to do that.” That is, they declined to turn over the deconfliction codes to Israel at the start of the American invasion of the Iraq war and later. But when Russia demanded them, Obama jumped.
I don’t think that Bashar Assad should go. I never have. He kept the Christian and religious minorities safe, and if he goes, the Islamic State is the primary force in place to benefit from his fall. On Assad’s remaining in power as a bulwark against the Islamic State, Putin is right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
But this is much bigger than Assad. Obama’s turning the Middle East over to Russia and Iran is one of those terrible moments in history that you can point to, shaking your head in horror and saying, “If only…” Turning over the Middle East to Russia is a major historical blunder. That said, Putin is killing jihadists. Obama whines that Putin is killing the “opposition,” “our allies.” Who is Russia bombing? The 5 recruits that cost the US 500 million to train? “Moderate al Qaeda”? Jabhat al Nusra? #silverlining
The build-out of the Russian air base at Latakia has Russia flexing its muscles. Previously, Israel had a fairly free hand to carry out strikes against arms shipments that go from Iran through Syria to the Iranian-backed jihad group Hizb’Allah in Lebanon. But now the Russian presence in Syria severely limits Israel’s freedom of action.
What the future might hold as a result of Obama’s fecklessness, perfidy, and betrayal of Israel is anyone’s guess, but the catastrophic consequences of the Russia-Iran-Syria axis are far-reaching. The Islamic State is likely not only to survive, but to grow–and Ambassador John Bolton predicts that Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani will eventually make a deal with them, reaching a modus vivendi with the Islamic State.
Catastrophe upon catastrophe, all courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama.
Categories: Assad, Ban Ki-Moon, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran - Middle East, Iran - Syria war, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Israel, John Bolton, Kerry, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war, United Nations
Tags: Assad, Ban Ki-Moon, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Iran - Middle East, Iran - Syria war, Iran Scam, Iranian proxies, Israel, John Bolton, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syria war, United Nations
Comments: 12 Comments
October 3, 2015
The Moscow-Washington-Tehran Axis of Evil, Canada Free Press, Cliff Kincaid, October 3, 2015
(I am not posting this because I currently accept its conclusions or some of their bases. However, it’s frightening, interesting and has at least some food for thought. — DM)
The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin has blindsided Barack Obama in the Middle East, catching the U.S. off-guard. It’s another Obama “failure,” we’re told. “Obama administration scrambles as Russia attempts to seize initiative in Syria,” is how a Washington Post headline described it. A popular cartoon shows Putin kicking sand in the faces of Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry on a beach.
The conventional wisdom is driven by the notion that Obama has the best of intentions but that he’s been outmaneuvered. What if his intention all along has been to remake the Middle East to the advantage of Moscow and its client state Iran? What if he knows exactly what he’s doing? Too many commentators refuse to consider that Obama is deliberately working against U.S. interests and in favor of the enemies of the U.S. and Israel.
In his U.N. address, Obama said, “As President of the United States, I am mindful of the dangers that we face; they cross my desk every morning. I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies, unilaterally and by force where necessary.”
This is laughable. We still have a strong military, but the inevitable conclusion from what’s recently transpired is that he doesn’t want to protect the interests of the U.S. or its allies in the Middle East. This is not a “failure,” but a deliberate policy.
The trouble with conventional wisdom is the assumption that Obama sees things the way most Americans do. In order to understand Obama’s Middle East policy, it is necessary to consult alternative sources of news and information and analysis. That includes communist news sources.
A fascinating analysis appears in the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, The Militant, one of the oldest and most influential publications among the left. You may remember the old photos which surfaced of Lee Harvey Oswald selling copies of The Militant before he killed the American president.
The headline over The Militant story by Maggie Trowe caught my eye: “‘Reset’ with US allows Moscow to send arms, troops to Syria.” It was not about Hillary Clinton’s reset with Moscow years ago, but a more recent one.
Here’s how her story began: “Moscow’s rapid military buildup in Syria is a result of the ‘reset’ in relations forged with the Russian and Iranian governments by the Barack Obama administration. The deal—reshaping alliances and conditions from Syria, Iran and the rest of the Middle East to Ukraine and surrounding region—is the cornerstone of U.S. imperialism’s efforts to establish a new order in the Mideast, but from a much weaker position than when the now-disintegrating order was imposed after World Wars I and II.”
Of course, the idea that “U.S. imperialism” is served by giving the advantage to Russia and Iran is ludicrous. Nevertheless, it does appear that a “reset” of the kind described in this article has in fact taken place. The author writes about Washington’s “strategic shift to Iran and Russia” and the “downgrading” of relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia. She notes that Moscow “seeks more influence and control of the country [Syria] and its Mediterranean ports and a stronger political hand in Mideast politics.” Iran “has sent Revolutionary Guard Quds forces to help prop up Assad, and collaborates with Moscow on operations in Syria,” she notes.
It is sometimes necessary to reject the conventional wisdom and instead analyze developments from the point of view of the Marxists, who understand Obama’s way of thinking. They pretend that Obama is a pawn of the “imperialists” but their analysis also makes sense from a traditional pro-American perspective. Those who accept the evidence that Obama has a Marxist perspective on the world have to consider that his policy is designed to help Moscow and Tehran achieve hegemony in the region.
At the same time, the paper reported, “Since Secretary of State John Kerry’s congenial visit with Putin in May, it has become clear that Washington would accept Moscow’s influence over its ‘near abroad’ in Ukraine and the Baltics, in exchange for help to nail down the nuclear deal with Tehran.” Hence, Obama has put his stamp of approval on Russian aggression in Europe and the Middle East. This analysis, though coming from a Marxist newspaper, fits the facts on the ground. It means that more Russian aggression can be expected in Europe.
The wildcard is Israel and it looks like the Israeli government is being increasingly isolated, not only by Obama but by Putin. The story notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Putin in Moscow on September 21, saying his concern was to “prevent misunderstandings” between Israeli and Russian troops, since Israel has carried out airstrikes in Syrian territory targeting weapons being transported to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon.
Some reports indicated that Israel had set up a joint mechanism with the Russian military to coordinate their operations in Syria.
However, the Russian leader reportedly told Obama during their U.N. meeting that he opposes Israeli attacks in Syria. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz ran a story that Russia intends to “Clip Israel’s Wings Over [the] Syrian Skies.” The paper added that Putin’s remarks to Obama showed that despite Netanyahu’s meeting with Putin in Moscow, “Russia intends to create new facts on the ground in Syria that will include restricting Israel’s freedom of movement in Syrian skies.”
It hardly seems to be the case that Obama has been outsmarted in the Middle East, or that Putin and Obama don’t like each other. Instead, it appears that Obama is working hand-in-glove with Putin to isolate Israel and that Obama is perfectly content to let the former KGB colonel take the lead.
Israel has always been seen by most U.N. members as the real problem in the region. Obama is the first U.S. President to see Israel in that same manner and to act accordingly. This is why Putin has not caught Obama off-guard in the least. They clearly see eye-to-eye on Israel and Iran.
Don’t forget that Obama actually telephoned Putin to thank him for his part in the nuclear deal with Iran. The White House issued a statement saying, “The President thanked President Putin for Russia’s important role in achieving this milestone, the culmination of nearly 20 months of intense negotiations.”
Building off the Iran nuclear deal, it looks like the plan is for Russia and the United States to force Israel to embrace a U.N. plan for a nuclear-free Middle East. That would mean Israel giving up control of its defensive nuclear weapons to the world body. Iran will be able to claim it has already made a deal to prohibit its own nuclear weapons development.
Such a scheme was outlined back in 2005 in an article by Mohamed Elbaradei, the director-general at the time of the U.N.‘s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That’s the same body that is now supposed to guarantee Iranian compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal signed by Russia and the U.S.
Elbaradei argued there would have to be “a dialogue on regional security as part of the peace process,” to be followed by an agreement “to make the Middle East a nuclear-weapons-free zone.”
The “dialogue” appears to be taking place now, mostly under the authority and auspices of the Russian government, with President Obama playing a secondary role.
The obvious danger is that Israel would be forced to comply with the plan for a “nuclear-weapons-free-zone,” while Iran would cheat and develop nuclear weapons anyway.
Netanyahu told the U.N. that “Israel deeply appreciates President Obama’s willingness to bolster our security, help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge and help Israel confront the enormous challenges we face.”
This must be his hope. But he must know that Israel’s security is slipping and that the survival of his country is in grave danger in the face of this Moscow-Washington-Tehran axis.
Before Putin further consolidates his military position in the Middle East and Iran makes more progress in nuclear weapons development, Netanyahu will have to launch a preemptive strike on the Islamic state. “Israel will not allow Iran to break in, to sneak in or to walk in to the nuclear weapons club,” the Israeli Prime Minister said.
In launching such a strike before the end of Obama’s second presidential term, Israel would bring down the wrath of the world, led by Russia and the U.S., on the Jewish state.
Categories: Airstrikes, Assad, Communism, Death to America, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Free world, IAEA, Imperialism, Iran - Middle East, Iran - Syria war, Iran / Israel War, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Israeli nukes, JCPOA, Kerry, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Obama's motivations, P5+1, Peace in our time, Putin, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war, Russian Aggression, Saudi Arabia, Syria war, Treason, U.S. allies, U.S. politics, United Nations
Tags: Airstrikes, Assad, Communism, Death to America, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Free world, IAEA, Imperialism, Iran - Israel war, Iran - Middle East, Iran - Syria war, Iran nuke inspections, Iran Scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian threats, Israel, Israeli nukes, JCPOA, Middle East, Netanyahu, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Obama's motivations, P5+1, Peace in our time, Putin, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war, Russian aggression, Saudi Arabia, Syria war, Treason, U.S. Allies, U.S. politics, United Nations
Comments: 59 Comments
October 2, 2015
The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the Next President Should Do, Heritage Foundation, James Phillips, October 2, 2015
(But please see, The Elephant In The Room. — DM)
The failure of Congress to halt the implementation of the Obama Administration’s nuclear agreement with Tehran means that the U.S. is stuck with a bad deal on Iran’s nuclear program at least for now. Iran’s radical Islamist regime will now benefit from the suspension of international sanctions without dismantling its nuclear infrastructure, which will remain basically intact. Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon is unlikely to be blocked by the Administration’s flawed deal, any more than North Korea was blocked by the Clinton Administration’s 1994 Agreed Framework.
The next President should not passively accept Obama’s risky deal with Tehran as a fait accompli. Instead, he or she should immediately cite any violations of the agreement by Iran, its continued support for terrorism, or other hostile policies as reason to abrogate the agreement. The Bush Administration, faced with bad deals negotiated by the Clinton Administration, eventually withdrew from both the Agreed Framework and the Kyoto Protocol.
Rather than endorsing a dangerous agreement that bolsters Iran’s economy, facilitates its military buildup, and paves the way for an eventual Iranian nuclear breakout, the next Administration must accelerate efforts to deter, contain, and roll back the influence of Iran’s theocratic dictatorship, which continues to call for “death to America.”
How the Next President Should Deal with Iran
Upon entering office, the next Administration should immediately review Iran’s compliance with the existing deal, as well as its behavior in sponsoring terrorism, subverting nearby governments, and attacking U.S. allies. Any evidence that Iran is cheating on the agreement (which is likely given Iran’s past behavior) or continuing hostile acts against the U.S. and its allies should be used to justify nullification of the agreement.
Regrettably, Tehran already will have pocketed up to $100 billion in sanctions relief by the time the next Administration comes to office because of the frontloading of sanctions relief in the early months of the misconceived deal. Continuing to fork over billions of dollars that Tehran can use to finance further terrorism, subversion, and military and nuclear expansion will only worsen the situation.
In place of the flawed nuclear agreement, which would boost Iran’s long-term military and nuclear threat potential, strengthen Iran’s regional influence, strain ties with U.S. allies, and diminish U.S. influence in the region, the new Administration should:
1. Expand sanctions on Iran. The new Administration should immediately reinstate all U.S. sanctions on Iran suspended under the Vienna Agreement and work with Congress to expand sanctions, focusing on Iran’s nuclear program; support of terrorism; ballistic missile program; interventions in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen; human rights violations; and holding of four American hostages (Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, and former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who has been covertly held hostage by Iran since 2007).
The new Administration should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization and apply sanctions to any non-Iranian companies that do business with the IRGC’s extensive economic empire. This measure would help reduce the IRGC’s ability to exploit sanctions relief for its own hostile purposes.
Washington should also cite Iranian violations of the accord as reason for reimposing U.N. sanctions on Iran, thus enhancing international pressure on Tehran and discouraging foreign investment and trade that could boost Iran’s military and nuclear programs. It is critical that U.S. allies and Iran’s trading partners understand that investing or trading with Iran will subject them to U.S. sanctions even if some countries refuse to enforce U.N. sanctions.
2. Strengthen U.S. military forces to provide greater deterrence against an Iranian nuclear breakout.Ultimately, no piece of paper will block an Iranian nuclear breakout. The chief deterrent to Iran’s attaining a nuclear capability is the prospect of a U.S. preventive military attack. It is no coincidence that Iran halted many aspects of its nuclear weapons program in 2003 after the U.S. invasion of and overthrow of hostile regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi, motivated by a similar apprehension about the Bush Administration, also chose to give up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
To strengthen this deterrence, it is necessary to rebuild U.S. military strength, which has been sapped in recent years by devastating budget cuts. The Obama Administration’s failure to provide for the national defense will shortly result in the absence of U.S. aircraft carriers from the Persian Gulf region for the first time since 2007. Such signs of declining U.S. military capabilities will exacerbate the risks posed by the nuclear deal.
3. Strengthen U.S. alliances, especially with Israel. The nuclear agreement has had a corrosive effect on bilateral relationships with important U.S. allies in the Middle East, particularly those countries that are most threatened by Iran, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Rather than sacrificing the interests of allies in a rush to embrace Iran as the Obama Administration has done, the next Administration should give priority to safeguarding the vital security interests of the U.S. and its allies by maintaining a favorable balance of power in the region to deter and contain Iran. Washington should help rebuild security ties by boosting arms sales to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that are threatened by Tehran, taking care that arms sales to Arab states do not threaten Israel’s qualitative military edge in the event of a flare-up in Arab–Israeli fighting.
To enhance deterrence against an Iranian nuclear breakout, Washington also should transfer to Israel capabilities that could be used to destroy hardened targets such as the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which is built hundreds of feet beneath a mountain. The only non-nuclear weapon capable of destroying such a target is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a precision-guided, 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb. Giving Israel these weapons and the aircraft to deliver them would make Tehran think twice about risking a nuclear breakout.
The U.S. and its European allies also should strengthen military, intelligence, and security cooperation with Israel and the members of the GCC, an alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, founded in 1981 to provide collective security for Arab states threatened by Iran. Such a coalition could help both to contain the expansion of Iranian power and to facilitate military action (if necessary) against Iran.
4. Put a high priority on missile defense. Iran’s ballistic missile force, the largest in the Middle East, poses a growing threat to its neighbors. Washington should help Israel to strengthen its missile defenses and help the GCC countries to build an integrated and layered missile defense architecture to blunt the Iranian missile threat. The U.S. Navy should be prepared to deploy warships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems to appropriate locations to help defend Israel and the GCC allies against potential Iranian missile attacks as circumstances demand. This will require coordinating missile defense activities among the various U.S. and allied missile defense systems through a joint communications system. The U.S. should also field missile defense interceptors in space for intercepting Iranian missiles in the boost phase, which would add a valuable additional layer to missile defenses.
5. Deter nuclear proliferation. For more than five decades, Washington has opposed the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies such as uranium enrichment, even for its allies. By unwisely making an exception for Iran, the Obama Administration in effect conceded the acceptability of an illicit uranium enrichment program in a rogue state. In fact, the Administration granted Iran’s Islamist dictatorship better terms on uranium enrichment than the Ford and Carter Administrations offered to the Shah of Iran, a U.S. ally back in the 1970s.
The Obama Administration’s shortsighted deal with Iran is likely to spur a cascade of nuclear proliferation among threatened states such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Such a multipolar nuclear Middle East, on hair-trigger alert because of the lack of a survivable second-strike capability, would introduce a new level of instability into an already volatile region. To prevent such an outcome, the next Administration must reassure these countries that it will take military action to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear capability as well as to deter Iranian military threats to their interests.
6. Expand domestic oil and gas production and lift the ban on U.S. oil exports to put downward pressure on world prices. In addition to sanctions, Iran’s economy has been hurt by falling world oil prices. Its oil export earnings, which constitute more than 80 percent of the regime’s revenue, have been significantly reduced. By removing unnecessary restrictions on oil exploration and drilling in potentially rich offshore and Alaskan oil regions, Washington could help to maximize downward pressure on long-term global oil prices. Lifting the ban on U.S. oil exports, an obsolete legacy of the 1973–1974 energy crisis spawned by the Arab oil embargo, would amplify the benefits of increased oil and gas production. Permitting U.S. oil exports not only would benefit the U.S. economy and balance of trade, but also would marginally lower world oil prices and Iranian oil export revenues, thereby reducing the regime’s ability to finance terrorism, subversion, and military expansion.
7. Negotiate a better deal with Iran. The Obama Administration played a strong hand weakly in its negotiations with Iran. It made it clear that it wanted a nuclear agreement more than Tehran appeared to want one. That gave the Iranians bargaining leverage that they used shrewdly. The Administration made a bad situation worse by downplaying the military option and front-loading sanctions relief early in the interim agreement, which reduced Iran’s incentives to make concessions.
The next Administration should seek an agreement that would permanently bar Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At a minimum, this would require:
- Banning Iran from uranium enrichment activities;
- Dismantling substantial portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly the Fordow and Natanz uranium enrichment facilities and Arak heavy water reactor;
- Performing robust inspections on an “anytime anywhere” basis and real-time monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities;
- Linking sanctions relief to Iranian compliance;
- Ensuring that Iran comes clean on its past weaponization efforts; and
- Determining a clear and rapid process for reimposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating.
The Bottom Line
The nuclear deal already has weakened relationships between the U.S. and important allies, undermined the perceived reliability of the U.S. as an ally, and helped Iran to reinvigorate its economy and expand its regional influence. After oil sanctions are lifted, Iran will gain enhanced resources to finance escalating threats to the U.S. and its allies. The next Administration must help put Iran’s nuclear genie back in the bottle by taking a much tougher and more realistic approach to deterring and preventing an Iranian nuclear breakout.
Categories: Death to America, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran - Middle East, Iran - secret deal, Iran military, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iran's military spending, Iranian anti-semitism, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Khamenei, Middle East, Netanyahu, Next US President and Iran scam, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Russia, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, U.S. 2016 elections, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. politics
Tags: Death to America, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Iran - Middle East, Iran military, Iran military spending, Iran nuke inspections, Iran Scam, Iran secret deals, Iranian anti-Semitism, Iranian military sites, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian threats, Israel, Khamenei, Middle East, Netanyahu, Next US President and Iran scam, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P4+1, Russia, Sanctions, Saudi Arabia, U.S. 2016 elections, U.S. Congress, U.S. military, U.S. politics
Comments: 4 Comments
October 2, 2015
The Elephant In The Room, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Yigal Carmon*, October 2, 2015
(Please see also, Iran wants to renegotiate parts of the nuke “deal.” That may be good. Have opponents of the “deal” given up? If so, why? — DM)
It may be that these opponents believe that the agreement is a done deal that cannot be stopped and that the current U.S. administration will follow through with it no matter what. This approach reflects not realism but ignorance. Obviously the administration wants to follow through with the deal. But the deal is no longer in it hands. It is Khamenei who is throwing a spanner in the works, declaring that he will not implement the agreement that the West believed it concluded on July 14.
In order to get Iran to implement the agreement, the language of the JCPOA will have to be changed and a new Security Council resolution will have to be passed. While in theory this would not be impossible, it would require a new process, entailing, at the very least, a public political debate in the West – one that would reveal Iran’s unreliability as a partner and would cost valuable time. And time is not on the side of the U.S. administration.
*****************
On September 3, 2015, not two months after the July 14 announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at Vienna and its celebration at the White House and in Europe, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dropped a bombshell.
In a speech to the Iranian Assembly of Experts, he backtracked from the agreement, demanding a new concession: that the sanctions be “lifted,” not merely “suspended.”[1] If that term is not changed, said Khamenei, there is no agreement. If the West only “suspends” the sanctions, he added, Iran will merely “suspend” its obligations. Giving further credence to his threat, he announced that it is the Iranian Majlis that must discuss and approve the agreement (or not), because it represents the people – when it is well known that the majority of its members oppose it, and Iranian President Hassan Rohani made every effort to prevent such a discussion in the Majlis from taking place.
Adding insult to injury, Ali Akbar Velayati, senior advisor to Khamenei and head of Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, said on September 19 that the negotiations, concluded and celebrated less than two months previously on July 14, are actually “not over yet.”[2]
Khamenei’s demand to replace “suspension” with “lifting” is not just semantic. It is a fundamental change, because the snapback of sanctions – the major security mechanism for the entire agreement – cannot take place with “lifting,” but only with “suspension.”
Ever since Khamenei dropped this bombshell, the Western media has maintained total silence, as if this were a trivial matter not worthy of mention, let alone analysis.
One might understand this reaction on the part of those who support the deal. Perhaps they are shocked, at a loss, and therefore hope that if they pretend they don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Indeed, this is the futile policy regularly adopted by ostriches.
However, one cannot but be astounded by the silence on the part of the opponents of the deal, including – oddly enough – Israel and the U.S. Republicans. One would expect these opponents to pounce on Khamenei’s statement and raise hell over Iran’s infanticide of the two-month-old agreement. One would expect them to bring it to the forefront of a new debate over the deal in any possible forum – in the U.S., the U.N., and the E.U.
But – nothing.
It may be that these opponents believe that the agreement is a done deal that cannot be stopped and that the current U.S. administration will follow through with it no matter what. This approach reflects not realism but ignorance. Obviously the administration wants to follow through with the deal. But the deal is no longer in it hands. It is Khamenei who is throwing a spanner in the works, declaring that he will not implement the agreement that the West believed it concluded on July 14.
In order to get Iran to implement the agreement, the language of the JCPOA will have to be changed and a new Security Council resolution will have to be passed. While in theory this would not be impossible, it would require a new process, entailing, at the very least, a public political debate in the West – one that would reveal Iran’s unreliability as a partner and would cost valuable time. And time is not on the side of the U.S. administration.
Right now, Iran is exposed almost daily as the ally of Russia against the U.S. Three months after the “historic” agreement declared by the White House, Iran continues to seek “Death to America,” and the Iranian foreign minister, the “hero” of the agreement, needs to apologize in Iran for “accidentally” shaking hands with the U.S. president. The truth of the agreement is emerging, and it is not certain that what Iran is now demanding will pass.
Interestingly enough, the White House’s first reaction was to brush off Khamenei’s demand. Iran, said Josh Earnest, should just do what it what it had undertaken to do in the agreement, and stop roiling the waters.[3]
A more sober response followed. There was hope that the meeting set for September 28 between the P5+1 and Iranian foreign ministers, on the margins of the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly, would produce a solution, but this hope was in vain. Iranian President Rohani fled back to Iran, on the pretext of the hajj tragedy in Mecca, and no one in the West knows how to proceed.
The Western media, for its part, is perpetuating its total blackout on the issue, hoping perhaps for a miracle in the secret U.S.-Iran talks, which this administration has been conducting for years. But even a secret U.S. concession will be no solution. Even if it were to offer a secret commitment to remove the sanctions altogether, Khamenei will not be satisfied. He openly challenged the U.S., and he needs its public capitulation. He will celebrate publicly any secret concession. Moreover, any new U.S. concession will prompt Khamenei to make ever more demands.
The most recent developments, and the emergence of Russia as a new-old contender for power vis-à-vis the U.S. in the world, particularly in the Middle East, will only encourage Khamenei to cling to his tried and true ally, Russia. Indeed, this administration has no objection to Russia’s resurgence in the Middle East, but Russia’s blatant anti-U.S. stance in every venue except in the private, honeyed Putin-Obama talks will ultimately lead even the blindest of Democrats to realize that Iran is indeed an enemy of the U.S. – as Iran plainly declares – and that any further concessions to it make no sense.
It seems that the worst nightmare of the supporters of the deal – that Iran will do away with the July 14 agreement – is about to come to pass.
*Y. Carmon is president and founder of MEMRI.
Endnotes:
[3] Earnest said: “What we have indicated all along is that once an agreement was reached, as it was back in mid-July, that we would be focused on Iran’s actions and not their words, and that we will be able to tell if Iran follows through on the commitments that they made in the context of these negotiations. And that is what will determine our path forward here. We’ve been crystal clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanctions relief is offered – and this is everything from reducing their nuclear uranium stockpile by 98 percent, disconnecting thousands of centrifuges, essentially gutting the core of their heavy-water reactor at Arak, giving the IAEA the information and access they need in order to complete their report about the potential military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program. And then we need to see Iran begin to comply with the inspections regime that the IAEA will put in place to verify their compliance with the agreement. And only after those steps and several others have been effectively completed, will Iran begin to receive sanctions relief. The good news is all of this is codified in the agreement that was reached between Iran and the rest of the international community. And that’s what we will be focused on, is their compliance with the agreement.” Whitehouse.gov, September 4, 2015.
Categories: Democrats, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, JCPOA, Khamenei, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Obama, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Republicans, Rouhani, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. politics, Western media
Tags: Democrats, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran Scam, Iranian nukes, JSPOA, Khamenei, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Obama, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Republicans, Rouhani, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. politiccs, Western media
Comments: 1 Comment
October 2, 2015
The Most Dangerous Man In the World, American Thinker, Andrew Logar, October 2, 2015
…is neither Russia’s Vladimir Putin nor China’s Xi Jinping, nor at this time, Ayatollah Khamenei – it’s none other than America’s Barack Hussein Obama. This is not because of any aggressive, risk-laden actions he has taken, far from it. It is because of those he has failed to take at critical times to credibly dissuade strategic competitors and potential aggressors, such as Russia and China, from actions that may suddenly compound into destabilizing confrontations, even war. When the Middle East cauldron spawned the barbaric ISIS, Obama’s indecisive, pusillanimous response allowed this Islamic malignancy to rapidly metastasize, compounding and accelerating an existing refugee problem that will involve America. Additionally, throughout his tenure, overt actions Obama has taken served to steadily and materially, degrade American military capabilities, while enemies grow stronger.
In retrospect, divining Obama’s foreign policy should have been relatively easy given his background – a world seen through the eyes of someone whose father was a Muslim, as was his step-father, whose early education was in a Muslim madrassa, followed by mentoring from the known communist Frank Marshall Davis, associations with Columbia University’s Palestinian activist Edward Said and later, Harvard’s leftist Brazilian socialist Roberto Unger, later close association with admitted communist and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, then followed by 20 years of anti-American and anti- Semitic sermons by Reverend Jeremiah Wright who, placing much of the world’s ills at America’s doorstep, culminated a post 9-11 sermon sententiously intoning, “…America’s chickens have come home to roost.”
Ironically, other chickens have indeed come home to roost. American liberalism’s pernicious obsession to eradicate the odium of slavery long gone and any vestiges of remaining discrimination in one fell swoop, blindly promoted the candidacy of the first black president, propelling a relatively unknown, unvetted and remarkably unqualified candidate to two electoral victories. That most unfortunate occurrence followed by resultant deleterious fallout at home and abroad, are liberalism’s chickens coming home to roost – in the White House – where they’ll cluck away until January 20, 2017.
After winning the 2008 election, Obama launched his now infamous “Apology Tour,” covering three continents in some 100 days, during which the Heritage Foundation identified 10 major apologies Obama made for America’s past behavior. Mitt Romney, in his book, “No Apology,” correctly criticized Obama’s gratuitous apologies. Indeed, unnecessary apologies by our president projected a weakness in resolve, confidence and appreciation of our nation’s accomplishments, our beliefs and values. While in Europe, when asked if he believed in American “exceptionalism,” he said yes – in the same way that, “ …the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.”
This was an arresting, if not downright stupefying statement – coming from the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation, with a manifestly unrivaled history. This is a nation which in 239 years since the Declaration of Independence, grew from 13 colonies and 3 million people to 50 states and 320 million people, a nation victorious in its Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and which fought its bloodiest of wars, the Civil War, to expunge slavery; this is a nation victorious in the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII, that introduced the incontestably successful Marshall Plan critical in European post war recovery, that sent men to the moon and back, 6 times – and the nation that won the Cold War – a nation that has consistently led the world in Nobel prizes in medicine, science and technology. This is unequivocally a nation like none other, a nation of unparalleled achievements and sadly, one whose president does not consider particularly exceptional.
The historical record now shows global competitors and enemies have taken their measure of Obama: the Russians have acted with impunity in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, the Chinese are establishing a stranglehold on the South China Sea while Russians, Chinese and Iranians are engaged in flagrant cyber-espionage against America, ISIS is growing, while Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are all in play.
Barack Obama’s sophomoric efforts at geopolitics derived from his warped, kaleidoscopic misreading of 20th century history have now spiraled into a veritable tragicomedy of incompetence. Witness his administration’s $500 million program to train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS: not only didn’t that produce the projected 5,000 trained fighters, or even 500, but only, according to General Lloyd Austin, “…four or five.” This is grist for a Marx Brothers movie and attributable to abysmally poor leadership, planning and organization which can only be placed at the doorstep of the White House.
An objective review of the Obama administration’s policies reveals they have consistently posed a direct or indirect threat to national security:
– The unilateral cancellation of the Easter Europe ABM deployment without securing a tangible quid pro quo from Moscow and no counter to Russia’s recent decision to sell the potent S-300 anti-aircraft system to Iran.
– The ill-advised support for the overthrow of long-term ally of the West, Egypt’s Mubarak and the inexplicable enthusiastic White House support of the Muslim Brotherhood.
– The equally ill-advised and ill-planned toppling of Libya’s Gaddafi, resulting in a country without a functional government now overrun with Islamists, where at Benghazi four Americans died needlessly.
– The withholding of vital intelligence from the Senate that Russia had been flagrantly cheating on the existing INF treaty to advance ratification of New START in 2010. Seventy-one Senators voted for ratification without full background knowledge.
– The 2011 withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq by Obama while blaming the Bush administration for inadequacies of the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). This allowed Iraq to descend back into sectarian chaos, giving rise to ISIS and advantage to Iran. A war won at high cost in blood and treasure was thus lost.
– The military drawdown in Afghanistan – mindlessly pre-announced to the enemy – may lose that war as well if continued.
– The release of five dangerous Taliban in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl is beyond rational justification and/or discussion.
– The manifest dereliction of duty in not taking strong measures to protect America from devastating EMP attack – which can be done at very affordable cost.
– The lack resolute policy has turned Syria into a graveyard of American credibility. Nothing substantive has been achieved to slow, let alone destroy, rapidly metastasizing ISIS, unconscionably leaving a compounding problem to future administrations.
– The opening of our southern border to a tsunami of illegal immigration, arguably to permanently bias future voter demographics toward a one-party (Democratic) state. That many of those gaining easy entry may wish us harm is apparently of no concern to Obama.
– The continuing undermining of America’s military superiority is increasing the likelihood of confrontation with adversaries. According to the Heritage Foundation Index of Military Strength, our Commander-In-Chief has allowed our military power to degrade to “Marginal,” leaving the US Army at its relatively weakest level since the end of WWII, while our antagonists pour money into their armed forces.
– Finally (but Obama is not through yet!) – during recent post-summit remarks, China’s Xi Jinping suggested tough U.S. response to Chinese hacking would bring retaliation; obligingly, Obama affirmed sanctions wouldn’t be directed against governments. Essentially, Xi stepped forward, Obama blinked and stepped back – signaling a major geopolitical sea change. Cyberespionage by Russia and Iran haven’t been addressed.
Before winning the 2008 election and still a senator, during the Bush administration’s then ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, Obama, in a brazen and historically unprecedented move, secretly sent a personal emissary to Iran, William G. Miller, a former Ambassador to Ukraine, essentially conveying this message: Obama will very likely to be elected president, after which time Iran will find negotiating with him far easier. The Bush negotiations reportedly then reached a stalemate. Fast-forward to 2015, through Obama’s and Kerry’s “hard” bargaining, we’ve reached an agreement with Iran whereby monitoring Iran’s programs will be left to the Iranians as they now have the right to self-inspect” and so as to take the sting away from such an onerous deal, we’ll give them $100 billion of frozen assets – with which to do as they please – while America agrees to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from cyber warfare.
Though Red China, Russia and Iran increasingly challenge America, the Middle East bloodshed continues and ISIS grows stronger, President Obama has declared “…no challenge–poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” This extraordinarily vacuous statement is from either a hopelessly delusional ideologue, woefully untutored in world history, geopolitics and the unequaled greatness of America, or a brilliant Manchurian Candidate marching to his own drumbeat. In any case, Obama is a president like none other – and may we never see the likes of him again.
Categories: China, Climate change, Death to America, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, History, Immigration, Iran scam, Islamic culture, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Obama - Middle East, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Russia, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: China, Climate hange, Death to America, Diplomacy, History, Immigration, Iran Scam, Islamic culture, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Islam, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Russia, Russia - Syria war
Comments: 45 Comments
October 1, 2015
Nobel Prize Rumors Put Focus On Kerry-Iran Coziness, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, October 1, 2015
John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif / AP
Growing speculation that John Kerry will receive a Nobel Peace Prize for finalizing the Iranian nuclear deal is generating renewed criticism of his close relationship with the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, a key public face for the theocratic regime who is rumored to be a probable co-recipient with Kerry.
Rumors have been circulating for months that Kerry and Zarif will be co-selected for the prize. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a leading Swedish think-tank, recommended in July that the two be selected for the Nobel in 2016.
Lawmakers and Washington insiders who have worked for years on the Iran portfolio have reacted with shock to the rumors, telling the Washington Free Beacon in multiple interviews that both Kerry and Zarif are unfit to receive the prize.
“We have seen Nobel Prizes that appeared to be awarded to people who have acted staunchly to the detriment of Israel’s existence, and if that is their inclination this time, I think Secretary Kerry should be first runner up for the Nobel Prize, right behind the Ayatollah,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas).
The Nobel Prize speculation comes after months of reports describing warmth and comfort between the American and Iranian teams that sealed the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The United States considers Iran to be the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and military officials have linked Tehran to the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq.
The growing rumors have reignited criticism among insiders of Kerry’s coziness with top Iranian officials and of the deal more specifically.
“No one should be surprised if the Nobel Peace Prize committee ends up awarding the chief negotiators of a catastrophic agreement that preserves and legitimizes Iran’s ability to build nuclear arms, and unleashes over $100 billion for Iran to further fund Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorists who attack Israel,” said one senior GOP aide who has long worked on the issue.
Those who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record said that Kerry and Zarif would make a mockery of the award. The recognition of Zarif in particular, a longtime Iranian regime insider known for his vociferous dislike of Israel, was particularly offensive to some observers.
“I assume they’ll win it. It will be announced in early-mid October, and then Kerry can resign in glory and join the Democratic presidential race,” said Bill Kristol, the prominent conservative commentator and editor of the Weekly Standard.
Like Kristol, other observers feel certain that the Nobel commission will grant the award to Kerry and Zarif either this year or next.
“American historians will judge Kerry as one of the worst secretaries of state in the country’s history, a man who ceded enormous parts of the globe to hostile American rivals and legitimized the Iranian nuclear program,” said one senior pro-Israel official who has been involved in the Iran fight but was not authorized to speak on record.
“It’s not a surprise that European elites, who find America’s rivals preferable to America and want to do business with Iran, are going to reward him for it,” the source said.
When asked this week to address the speculation, a spokesman for the Nobel Foundation declined to confirm who may or may not be in the running.
“The Nobel Foundation cannot comment, confirm, or deny rumors of the kind described in your email below,” the official said.
“According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation and the prize awarding institutions of the Nobel Prize all nominations are classified information,” the official added, explaining that in some case nominators choose to reveal who they have nominated.
Nominations for the 2015 Nobel Prize had to be made before Jan. 31 of this year, before the nuclear deal was finalized. If chosen after this date, the nominees would be considered in the 2016 cycle.
“I think the work of the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament this year just got much easier,” Carl Bildt, the former Swedish prime minister, tweeted immediately after the nuclear agreement was announced in Vienna.
“A Nobel Peace Prize for John Kerry?” the Week asked the following day. “It could happen.”
Conservative commentators, such as National Review’s Jay Nordlinger, also picked up on the speculation.
“If the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives John Kerry the peace prize for the Iran deal, and Iran goes nuclear, will he throw away his Nobel medal?” Nordlinger asked in August, as criticism of the deal mounted.
Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Javad Zarif, Kerry, Nobel Peace Prize, P5+1
Tags: Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Iran Scam, Javad Zarif, Nobel Peace Prize, P5+1
Comments: 1 Comment
October 1, 2015
Obama’s show of weakness, Israel Hayom, Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi, October 1, 2015
The U.S. has been relegated to dragging its feet in a trail blazed by the Russian leader, as Washington is left to practically beg Moscow for a seat at the table where Assad’s fate will be determined.
******************
U.S. President Barack Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday was his worst and most embarrassing yet. Despite the fact that it has been seven years since he was elected president, it seems Obama has yet to learn anything from his growing list of failures, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Obama continues to naively preach about the importance of traditional diplomacy and broad international cooperation as a prerequisite to conflict resolution; and he does so despite the fact that his decision to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, compounded by his aversion to putting boots on the ground in Syria, have done nothing but breed violence, fanaticism and radical Islamism in the Middle East.
Against the backdrop of the bloody conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, Obama delivered a disconnected and utterly surreal speech before the U.N., lauding democracy and international agreements, even deficient, hollow ones, like the nuclear deal with Iran.
Beyond the sanctimonious sermon to nations and movements without any loyalty to the principles of Western democracy, Obama’s speech lacked any new message. On the contrary — he essentially legitimized Russia’s military presence in Syria, and the pivotal role Moscow has appropriated in the region due to American inaction against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
This inexcusable failure, which followed Washington’s acquiescence in allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin become the new mediator in the chemical warfare crisis in Syria in 2013, has afforded Moscow a coveted opportunity to become a major player in the Middle East, one shaping a new political and security reality.
The U.S. has been relegated to dragging its feet in a trail blazed by the Russian leader, as Washington is left to practically beg Moscow for a seat at the table where Assad’s fate will be determined.
Indeed, if you strip the envelope of democracy vs. dictatorship from Obama’s speech, it becomes more than evident that he is not only willing to foster partnerships with tyrants and oppressive regimes, but also that the dispute between the White House and the Kremlin over Syria is marginal, as it focuses on Assad’s status in the new political order that will be forged in Syria once the fighting subsides.
The American Gulliver, it seems, is coming to terms with the end of the single-world power hegemony. While the Russian military airlift to Syria continues in full swing, Obama is content with philosophical reflections on the desired nature of the new world order, yielding to the new balance of power emerging in the war-torn country.
One can only lament the fact that the U.S. president’s incomprehensible weakness only undermines the very democratic dream he himself has outlined.
This was evident in the meeting between Obama and Putin following their respective U.N. addresses. Despite Obama’s desire to give his Russian counterpart the cold shoulder, the fact the he declared before dozens of world leaders that the U.S. has “no desire to return to a cold war” took the sting out of his message.
This was nothing but an attempt at damage control over the harm caused to the U.S.’s prestige and status in the global theater by drawing new red lines to limit Russia’s operation in the Middle East. The problem is that we already know how blurry those red lines are when it comes to Syria.
Categories: Assad, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Obama - Middle East, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Russia, United Nations
Tags: Assad, Diplomacy, Foreign Policy, Iran Scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Russia, United Nations
Comments: 8 Comments
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments