Posted tagged ‘Russia’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Moscow-Washington-Tehran Axis of Evil

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)

KINCAID100315

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 59 Comments

The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the Next President Should Do

October 2, 2015

The Iran Nuclear Deal: What the Next President Should Do, Heritage Foundation, , 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

Israel’s Risk Aversion Problem

October 2, 2015

Israel’s Risk Aversion Problem, Town Hall, Caroline Glick, October 2, 2015

Netanyahu and glasses

Because his strategy is based on ideological beliefs rather than power calculations rooted in reality, Obama’s position cannot be swayed by evidence, even when evidence shows that his administration’s policies endanger US national security.

The more Israel allows other actors to determine the nature of the emerging regional order, the less secure Israel will be. The more willing we are to take calculated risks today the greater our ability will be to influence the future architecture of regional power relations and so minimize threats to our survival in the decades to come.

***********************

On Wednesday 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.

Reacting to the administration’s humiliation, Republican Sen. John McCain said, “This administration has confused our friends, encouraged our enemies, mistaken an excess of caution for prudence and replaced the risks of action with the perils of inaction.”

McCain added that Russian President Vladimir Putin had stepped “into the wreckage of this administration’s Middle East policy.”

While directed at the administration, McCain’s general point is universally applicable. Today is no time for an overabundance of caution.

The system of centralized regimes that held sway in the Arab world since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago has unraveled. The shape of the new order has yet to be determined.

The war in Syria and the chaos and instability engulfing the region are part and parcel of the birth pangs of a new regional governing architecture now taking form. Actions taken by regional and global actors today will likely will influence power relations for generations.

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.

Russia isn’t the only strategic player seeking to exploit the war in Syria and the regional chaos. Turkey and Iran are also working assiduously to take advantage of the current absence of order to advance their long term interests.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is exploiting the rise of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq to fight the Kurds in both countries. Erdogan’s goal is twofold: to prevent the establishment of an independent Kurdistan and to disenfranchise the Kurds in Turkey.

As for Iran, Syria is Iran’s bulwark against Sunni power in the Arab world and the logistical base for Tehran’s Shi’ite foreign legion Hezbollah. Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei is willing to fight to the bitter end to hold as much of Syrian territory as possible.

Broadly speaking, Iran views the breakup of the Arab state system as both a threat and an opportunity.

The chaos threatens Iran, because it has radicalized the Sunni world. If Sunni forces unite, their numeric advantage against Shi’ite Iran will imperil it.

The power of Sunni numbers is the reason Bashar Assad now controls a mere sixth of Syrian territory. To prevent his fate from befalling them, the Iranians seek to destabilize neighboring regimes and where possible install proxy governments in their stead.

Iran’s cultivation of alliances and proxy relationships with Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida, and its phony war against Islamic State all point to an overarching goal of keeping Sunni forces separated and dependent on Tehran.

The Iranian regime also fears the prospect of being overthrown by its domestic opponents. To counter this threat the regime engages in large-scale and ever escalating repression of its perceived foes.

Iran’s nuclear program also plays a key role in the regime’s survival strategy. As Khamenei and his underlings see things, nuclear weapons protect the regime in three ways. They deter Iran’s external foes. They increase domestic support for the regime by enriching Iran which, no longer under international sanctions, sees its diplomatic and economic prestige massively enhanced due to its nuclear program.

Finally, there is Iran’s war with Israel and the US. A nuclear-armed Iran is a direct threat to both countries.

And this, too, is a boon for the mullacracy. From the regime’s perspective, fighting Israel and the US serves to neutralize the Sunni threat to the regime. The more Iran is seen as fighting Israel and the US the more legitimate it appears to Sunni jihadists.

This then brings us to the Americans. Like the Russians, the Turks and the Iranians, President Barack Obama and his associates are strategic players. Unlike those powers however, the administration is moved not by raw power calculations but by ideological dictates.

Obama and his advisers are convinced that the instability and radicalization of states and actors throughout the region is the consequence of the actions of past US administrations and those of America’s regional allies – first and foremost, Israel and Egypt. The basis for this conviction is the administration’s post-colonial ideological underpinnings.

Because his strategy is based on ideological beliefs rather than power calculations rooted in reality, Obama’s position cannot be swayed by evidence, even when evidence shows that his administration’s policies endanger US national security.

This brings us to Israel.

Israel has limited power to influence regional events.

It cannot change its neighbors’ values or cultures. Israel can however limit its neighbors’ ability to harm it and expand its ability to deter would be aggressors by among other things, using its power judiciously to influence now forming power balances between various regional and world actors.

Israel has followed this model in Syria with notable success.

At an early stage of the war our leaders recognized that aside from the Kurds, who have no shared border with us, there are no viable actors in Syria that are not dangerous to Israel. As a result, Israel has no interest in the victory of one group against others.

The only actor in Syria that Israel has felt it necessary to actively rein in is Hezbollah. So it has acted repeatedly to prevent Hezbollah from using its operational presence in Syria as a means for augmenting its offensive capabilities in Lebanon.

The problem with this strategy is that it has ignored the fact that from Hezbollah’s perspective, there is no operational difference between Lebanon and Syria.

The war in Syria spread to Lebanon years ago.

Now, with Iranian and Russian assistance, Hezbollah is beginning to develop the industrial capacity to bypass Israel and independently produce advanced weapons inside Lebanon. This rapid industrialization of Hezbollah’s military capabilities requires Israel to end its respect for the all-but-destroyed international border and take direct action against Hezbollah’s capabilities in Lebanon.

This brings us to Hezbollah’s boss, Iran. For the past several years, the same caution that has led Israel to grant de facto immunity to Hezbollah forces in Lebanon has led to Israel’s passivity and deference to the Obama administration in relation to Iran’s nuclear program.

With regard to Iran’s nuclear installations, the strategy of passivity has largely been forced onto an unwilling political leadership by Israel’s military leaders.

For the past several years, the IDF’s General Staff has refused to support the government’s position on Iran’s nuclear program.

Our military leaders have justified their insubordination by arguing that if Israel takes independent action against Iran’s nuclear program it will undermine its bilateral relations with the US, which they consider more important than preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Although under the best of circumstances, the IDF’s position would be unacceptable from the perspective of democratic norms of governance, since the ideologically driven Obama administration took power seven years ago, the military’s position has imperiled the country.

So long as Obama – or the ideology that informs his actions – remains in power in Washington, US security guarantees towards Israel will have no credibility.

The IDF’s assessment that ties to the US are more important than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power will remain incorrect, and dangerously so.

Today is Israel’s opportunity to shape the future of the Middle East by not only preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, but by preventing a regional nuclear arms race.

The closer Iran comes to emerging as a nuclear power, the more Sunni regimes, including Islamic State, will seek their own nuclear capabilities. It goes without saying that the more regional actors have nuclear weapons, the more dangerous the region becomes for Israel, and indeed for the world as a whole.

For many Israelis, the story of the week wasn’t Russia’s air strikes against US-allied forces in Syria. It was PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s speech at the UN General Assembly.

Leftists expressed horror in the face of Abbas’s threat to end the PLO’s adherence to the agreements it signed with Israel in the 1990s (and has stood in material breach of ever since). The government insisted, for its part that the reason the peace process has not brought peace is because Abbas and his PLO refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Unfortunately, both sides’ responses to Abbas’s speech indicate that Israel has lost all semblance of strategic purpose in regard to the Palestinians.

Fifteen years ago this week, on September 28, 2000, the Palestinians opened their terrorist war against Israel. Ever since it has been clear that no Palestinian faction is interested in living at peace with Israel.

Despite this, for the past 15 years, Israel has refused to reconsider its strategic allegiance to the false notion that it has the ability to influence the hearts and minds of the Palestinians and bend them in the direction of peace.

This delusional thinking is what caused the IDF’s General Staff to convene immediately after Operation Protective Edge ended and try to figure out how to rebuild Gaza.

Ever since the cease-fire came into force, Hamas has diverted all the assistance it has received from Israel and the international community not to rebuild Gaza, but to rebuild its military capacity to harm Israel. And yet, from the IDF’s perspective, ever since the war ended our most urgent task has been to save Hamas and the Palestinians alike from reckoning with the price of their aggression.

Likewise, Israel continues to insist that we have a strategic interest in peace with the PLO. Even if this is true in theory, chances are greater that unicorns will fall from the sky and prance through Jerusalem’s Old City than that the PLO will agree to make peace with Israel.

Our continued defense of the PLO as a legitimate actor harms our ability to secure other strategic interests that are achievable and can improve Israel’s regional position. These interests include securing transportation arteries in Judea and Samaria and strengthening Israel’s military and political control over the areas. These interests have only grown more acute in recent years with the rise of jihadist forces throughout the region and among the Palestinians themselves.

This brings us back to McCain and his strategic wisdom.

Israel must not allow the risks of action to lure us into strategic paralysis that imperils our future.

The more Israel allows other actors to determine the nature of the emerging regional order, the less secure Israel will be. The more willing we are to take calculated risks today the greater our ability will be to influence the future architecture of regional power relations and so minimize threats to our survival in the decades to come.

Categories: Abbas, Arab nations, Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Foreign policy, Hezbollah, Ideology, Iran - Syria war, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Israeli attack on Iran nukes, Obama - Middle East, Obama's legacy, Palestinian Authority, Palestinian heroes, Palestinians, Putin, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Shia, Sunni, Syrian war, Theocracy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 44 Comments

The Most Dangerous Man In the World

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 45 Comments

Chinese warplanes to join Russian air strikes in Syria. Russia gains Iraqi air base

October 2, 2015

Chinese warplanes to join Russian air strikes in Syria. Russia gains Iraqi air base, DEBKAfile, October 2, 2015

Russia_China_480

Russia’s military intervention in Syria has expanded radically in two directions.DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that China sent word to Moscow Friday, Oct. 2, that J-15 fighter bombers would shortly join the Russian air campaign that was launched Wednesday, Sept. 30. Baghdad has moreover offered Moscow an air base for targeting the Islamic State now occupying large swathes of Iraqi territory

Russia’s military intervention in Syria has five additional participants: China, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hizballah.

The J-15 warplanes will take off from the Chinese Liaoning-CV-16 aircraft carrier, which reached Syrian shores on Sept. 26 (as DEBKAfile exclusively reported at the time). This will be a landmark event for Beijing: its first military operation in the Middle East as well the carrier’s first taste of action in conditions of real combat.

Thursday night, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi, made this comment on the Syrian crisis at a UN Security Council session in New York: “The world cannot afford to stand by and look on with folded arms, but must also not arbitrarily interfere (in the crisis).”

A no less significant development occurred at about the same time when Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, speaking to the US PBS NewsHour, said he would welcome a deployment of Russian troops to Iraq to fight ISIS forces in his country too. As an added incentive, he noted that this would also give Moscow the chance to deal with the 2,500 Chechen Muslims whom, he said, are fighting with ISIS in Iraq.

DEBKAfile’s military sources add that Al-Abadi’s words came against the backdrop of two events closely related to Russia’s expanding role in the war arena:

1.  A joint Russian-Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi war room has been working since last week out of the Iraqi Defense Ministry and military staff headquarters in Baghdad to coordinate the passage of Russian and Iranian airlifts to Syria and also Russian air raids. This command center is also organizing the transfer of Iranian and pro-Iranian Shiite forces into Syria.

2.  Baghdad and Moscow have just concluded a deal for the Russian air force to start using the Al Taqaddum Air Base at Habbaniyah, 74 km west of Baghdad, both as a way station for the Russian air corridor to Syria and as a launching-pad for bombing missions against ISIS forces and infrastructure in northern Iraq and northern Syria.

Russia has thus gained a military enclave in Iraq, just as it has in Syria, where it has taken over a base outside Latakia on the western coast of Syria. At the same time, the Habbaniyah air base also serves US forces operating in Iraq, which number an estimated 5,000.

Categories: Assad, China, Foreign policy, Hezbollah, Iran - Syria war, Iran military, Iranian proxies, Iraq, Iraq war, Iraqi military, Israel, Obama - Middle East, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Putin, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 6 Comments

‘Yesterday Russia Turned A New Page In The History Of The World’

October 1, 2015

Chairman Of The Hizbullah-Affiliated ‘Al-Akhbar’ Daily On Russian Air Campaign In Syria: ‘Yesterday Russia Turned A New Page In The History Of The World,’ Middle East Media Research Institute, October 1, 2015

In an article published in the Hizbullah-affiliated Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar on October 1, 2015, the chairman of the newspaper’s board of directors, Ibrahim Al-Amin, predicted that Russia’s air campaign in Syria will be merely a prelude to a larger military offensive involving ground operations by the Syrian Army, Iran, Hizbullah, and even the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Amin is known to have close ties to Hizbullah, and in the past he has proven a reliable source on matters relating to the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis.

24967Ibrahim Al-Amin (source: Siyese.net)

The following is the translation of the article:

“…This is the first test for the granddaughter of the Eastern dynasty [i.e. Russia] since World War II, and it is the first field test of whether America’s unipolar position in the world over the past quarter century has truly been broken. Above all, this is a repositioning of Russian military force in the direct labor market of the regions of ‘cold’ confrontation with the U.S.-led West… Today we find ourselves before the best opportunity of putting Syria on a path to a true solution, even if it be prefaced by fire.

“As for the facts, the Russian air force carried out the first missions of a working program laid out in detailed form in an existing plan of cooperation between Moscow and its allies in the war in Syria and Iraq. This is a plan that is coordinated down to the finest details with the two allies Syria and Iran, and consequently with Hizbullah [as well]… What happened yesterday, and which will soon reach its culmination, is a necessary preface to a larger military action that will include a land component undertaken by other forces in the alliance. To put it more directly, [Russia’s] aerial bombardment of [the rebels’] command and control centers, major weapons arsenals, and artillery positions will be a preface to a military operation carried out by the Syrian army on the ground, with direct support from Iran and Hizbullah, and even from the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces… It may be emphasized that Russia’s activity yesterday means clearly that all the discussions in New York didn’t change an iota in the military plan of action…

“The signs of surprise and astonishment on [the faces of] the Americans, the Westerners, the Israelis, the Turks, and the Saudis are an additional proof of the weakness of the prior coordination regarding the fate of the initiatives surrounding the Syria crisis. In fact, the step taken by Russia is a kind of dare to all those who employed every violent means they could against the Syrian regime. If they decide to broaden the confrontation, they will be forced to deal with the new realities, which today are openly represented by the Russian military presence, and tomorrow will be represented by an open Iranian military presence as well…

“This must not hide from our eyes the picture of the complicated reality, which tells us that the joy felt by the regime elements in Syria must not turn into any slackening, not on the part of the regime itself, and not on the part of all those who fight alongside it. It would be naive to consider the Russian strikes sufficient to counter the enemies. It would rather be realistic to profit from the support of Russia – which is a supporting actor, and is not [itself] a member of the axis of resistance – in order to prepare to wage harsh and decisive battles in a number of places in Syria. This is a matter that requires raising the level of readiness and mobilization, and the creation of operative means of benefitting from the Russian military arsenal that is present in or coming to Syria.

“Yesterday Russia turned a new page in the history of the world. However far its military action in the field reaches, it is the political and strategic results that will remain more important. These results will invite those who delude themselves in thinking that America is still the leader of the world and controller of its fate to revise their stance. Those who do not want to change their minds, let them stay as they wish, but they should take into account that they must rely on themselves more than at any time in the past. This goes for Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and even the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa!”

Categories: Foreign policy, Hezbollah, Iran - Middle East, Iran military, Iran scam, Iraq, Israel, Middle East, Obama's foreign failures, Putin, Russia, Russia - Middle East, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 5 Comments

Obama’s show of weakness

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 8 Comments

Cartoon of the day

October 1, 2015

H/t Freedom is just another word

gone

Categories: Humor, Obama's foreign failures, Putin, Russia
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Putin Plays Mideast Chess as Obama Looks On

October 1, 2015

Putin Plays Mideast Chess as Obama Looks On, American Thinker, Jonathan F. Keiler, October 1, 2015

(Unfortunately, Obama was “in the game” which led to the nuke “deal” with Iran. There, he was not incompetent; he got what he sought. — DM)

Obama has made a lot of foreign policy mistakes in office, but his capitulation on the Iranian nuclear talks followed by Russia’s move into Syria is impossible to explain away as anything but a stupendous strategic fiasco.  Incompetence is too nice a word.  Obama was never even in the game.

*********************

It is sometimes said that in negotiations with foreigners, American leaders play checkers, while their wilier opponents play chess.   There is perhaps some truth to this, as American leaders sometimes chase short-term political results, a consequence of democratic governance and constantly changing leadership.  By contrast, despotic Persians are credited with inventing chess, and in modern times autocratic Russians have been its master, and so it is tempting to say of President Obama’s dealings with those two countries that the analogy holds.

But that is way too charitable.  As Vladimir Putin skillfully reasserts Russian power and influence in the Middle East with Islamic Persian Iran as a willing partner, a more apt analogy might be that while the Russians and Iranians move their chessmen, isolating and threatening opposing pieces, Obama is not even at the table, but rather childishly looking on, as he pushes diplomatic dirt around the Middle East sandbox.

For over 150 years, a primary objective of Western diplomatic and military strategy was to keep the Russians out of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.  In the 1850s, the British and French went to war in Crimea to protect the Ottomans from Russian predation and to preserve the balance of power.  Later, the so-called “Great Game” centered on similar British efforts to frustrate Russian domination of Iran and Afghanistan.  A century later, the United States took up the task, offsetting Russian influence in newly socialist Arab dictatorships by backing Israel and more traditional Arab monarchies in the Middle East, while openly and successfully opposing the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan.

Today, one can’t even say there remains any Western strategy regarding Russia.  Western Europe has mostly forfeited its military and political influence overseas to support decadent welfare states, even as it is being progressively and deliberately overwhelmed by millions of Islamist migrants.  Under Obama, who supports and admires Europe’s demise, the United States has increasingly joined in the decline.  The laughable Libyan campaign, “fought” by Europeans while the U.S. led from behind, set an example of pursuing a feckless, feel-good military campaign without regard for consequences or traditional strategic concerns.  Obama’s encouragement of the so-called Arab Spring and its Islamist provocateurs almost lost Egypt and did lose Syria, with catastrophic humanitarian and geopolitical results.

Putin is taking advantage of American weakness and inaction.  A half-century of successful American effort to keep the Russians out of the Middle East has been forfeit in a few months of breathtaking American diplomatic and military incompetence.  Obama’s capitulation in the Iran deal effectively completed the groundwork for the Russian move, Putin having carefully monitored America’s year-long and ineffectual air campaign against ISIS.  Putin now claims that Russia’s push into Syria is to redeem the campaign against ISIS with Russian troops fighting with Syria and Hezb’allah.  Embarrassed by Putin at the U.N., Obama gave up any pretense of strength, effectively welcoming the Russian “intervention” against ISIS.  Unexplained is why a large percentage of Russian anti-ISIS forces are heavily equipped with anti-aircraft weapons, something that even a flaccid NATO command cannot ignore, inasmuch as ISIS have an air force.  Those weapons are useful only against NATO or Israeli aircraft.

So lost was Obama before his meeting with Putin at the U.N. that his stated strategy for dealing with the Russian strongman was to ask him what he was doing.  From the stiff and awkward body language of the president following the meeting (a painful handshake and awkward smile) it is clear that Putin told Obama at least some of the story, whether Obama liked it or not.  Most particularly, his client Bashar Assad will remain in power with Russian backing, regardless of Obama’s view on the matter.  But likely Obama had known what he was in for, and just going through the motions.  The day before, Secretary of State of State John Kerry responded to a question about how long the U.S. could tolerate the survival of Assad, saying, “… it doesn’t have to be on day one or month one or whatever.”  Right, dude, whatever.  Between Obama and Kerry, it is now fair to assume that our much muddled and irresolute Syrian policy is “whatever,” which means we just don’t care.  We take our toys and go home.

If Obama was hoping, as he and his supporters implied, that the Iranian deal would produce a more moderate, cooperative Iran, Putin and the mullahs are doing all they can to demonstrate how wrong he was.  If he was hoping that “international pressure” and the conflict in Ukraine would moderate Putin’s aggressive strategies, he was wrong again.  And if he thinks that by quitting, he has left Putin an unwinnable game, the Russian leader aims to prove him wrong again.  And since Obama is almost always wrong when it comes to foreign policy, it’s a fool’s errand to bet against Putin.

In chess, before going for the opponent’s king, typical strategy calls for supporting one’s important pieces, while threatening and isolating opposing pieces.  The Russians and Iranians are now going about this with a vengeance, without the United States or the West making any noticeably effective counter-moves.  Russia is backing and protecting Assad and has closely allied itself with a newly empowered (thanks largely to Obama) Iran.  Meanwhile, traditional American allies in the region, Israel, Egypt, and the Arab monarchies are indeed increasingly threatened and isolated.  The stage is being set for a Russo-Iranian endgame that could prove disastrous to America’s traditional allies and the West in general.

Some of Obama’s liberal supporters dismiss such analysis as over the top, and insist that Putin’s moves have more to do with domestic politics than a long-term Middle Eastern power play.  They point out Putin’s problems at home, and the relative weakness of the Russian military.  However, relative Russian weakness means little when moving into a power vacuum created by Obama’s flight from international responsibilities and, to a large extent, reality.  And besides, this has been the basic way liberals have sought to excuse Obama whenever he is pushed around by a foreign leader (which is almost always).  Putin’s got problems, so he invades Ukraine, threatens the Baltic States, and moves into Syria.  The Chinese have problems, so they push naval vessels into American waters and fortify disputed Western Pacific archipelagos.  Korea’s got problems, Iran’s got problems, and none of their aggressive actions has anything to do with the dilettante in the White House.  It’s all about solving problems at home with international temper tantrums.

Obama has made a lot of foreign policy mistakes in office, but his capitulation on the Iranian nuclear talks followed by Russia’s move into Syria is impossible to explain away as anything but a stupendous strategic fiasco.  Incompetence is too nice a word.  Obama was never even in the game.

 

Categories: Assad, Death to America, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Free world, Human rights, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Obama - Middle East, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Putin, Russia, United Nations
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

Obama’s U.N. message — kick me, I won’t feel a thing

September 30, 2015

Obama’s U.N. message — kick me, I won’t feel a thing, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, September 30, 2015

Obama’s options are to counteract the expansion or offer lectures while Russia gives him a “back kick.” Like so much of his conduct, Obama’s U.N. speech amounts to pasting a “kick me” sign on his backside.

*********************************

“History, Stephen said, is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake. . .What if that nightmare gave you a back kick?”

This passage from Ulysses captures the Obama presidency in the realm of foreign policy. History, the nightmare from which the president is trying to escape, has given him a “back kick” — in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Yemen for example — and he risks becoming a laughingstock as a result.

But there’s a twist. President Obama denies he has been kicked. His nightmare thus becomes ours.

Obama’s speech to the United Nations illustrates the problem. Elliott Abrams, describing the speech as “surreal,” writes that it “is filled with nice lines that unfortunately bear no relationship to his seven years of foreign policy — and in some cases, no relationship to reality.”

Abrams supports this claim by analyzing what Obama had to say about Syria, Libya, Ukraine, and Cuba. The analysis is well worth reading.

I want to focus, though, on a portion of just one passage. Obama stated:

I stand before you today believing in my core that we, the nations of the world, cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion. We cannot look backwards. We live in an integrated world — one in which we all have a stake in each other’s success. . . .And if we cannot work together more effectively, we will all suffer the consequences. That is true for the United States, as well.

The disdain for history is evident and, in a sense, warranted. But it doesn’t follow from the fact that history has been unpleasant that we cannot (or should not) look back at it. History has much to teach us.

One lesson is that Obama’s claim that “we cannot return to the old ways of conflict and coercion” is rubbish. The world not only can “return” to them, it has (and never stopped).

Another lesson is that conflict and coercion don’t necessarily cause “all” to “suffer” bad “consequences.” Often conflict and coercion produce winners and losers. The losers suffer, but the winners, though often paying some price, thrive for decades and sometimes centuries.

The fact that we “live in an integrated world” doesn’t alter this reality. If Obama knew anything about history, he would understand that integration isn’t new. Europe and large portions of Asia were integrated by trade and migration more than two thousand years ago. In important ways, today’s world, with its religious wars and mass movement of peoples, bears more resemblance to the ancient one than to yesterday’s world of seemingly solid nation states (which was also integrated).

Obama wasn’t offering a history lesson, though. The speech was an exercise in self-justification — an attempt to demonstrate that although he looks like a loser, he isn’t really one because the old world of losers and winners has been extinguished. This farcical claim will only enhance Obama’s status as a laughingstock.

But the speech had a serious side, I think. It seems to me that Obama was sending this message to Putin: Russia will suffer if you don’t cooperate with the U.S. In fact, Obama mentioned the sanctions against Russia and their consequences (“capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians”) in his speech.

The message isn’t implausible. Russia reportedly is starting to run short on foreign currency reserves, thanks in part to sanctions. Russia also runs the risk of military overreach if it continues to become more involved in Syria. Its dirty little war in Ukraine enjoys only mixed support at home and polls show little appetite by Russians for large scale military involvement in Syria. (Just as we had Vietnam, Russia had Afghanistan).

But Putin is a skillful operator. He doesn’t need lessons from Obama.

Taking on ISIS to a serious degree would require a level of military engagement that might erode Putin’s domestic support. But it’s unlikely that Putin is serious about doing ISIS in (though I’m pretty sure he would like to). He just dangles this prospect, as Iran does, to tantalize Obama.

Putin’s goals, it seems to me, are (1) to work with Iran to help Assad maintain control over a portion of Syria, (2) cement relations with Iran, and (3) diminish U.S. influence in the region. He may well be able to accomplish these objectives without a level of military involvement that might hurt him at home.

As for Russia’s finances, they appear to be a looming problem. Ironically, however, Obama has undercut the Russia sanctions by lifting those on Iran. The Iran deal will boost the Russian economy by enabling Russians to sell all manner of weapons to the mullahs.

These sales alone won’t solve Russia’s economic problems. It needs a strong rebound of oil prices, which may or may not be in the cards.

But history suggests that “capital flight, a contracting economy, a fallen ruble, and the emigration of more educated Russians” won’t be sufficient to dissuade an autocrat like Putin from expanding Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Obama’s options are to counteract the expansion or offer lectures while Russia gives him a “back kick.” Like so much of his conduct, Obama’s U.N. speech amounts to pasting a “kick me” sign on his backside.

Categories: Dishonor, Foreign policy, Ideology, Iran - Syria war, Iranian proxies, Iraq war, Islamic State, Obama - Middle East, Obama's America, Obama's foreign failures, Obama's legacy, Putin, Russia, Russia - Syrian war, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »