There is no argument about the Obama’s foreign policy that has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Nonetheless when it comes to Iran, history shows this matter is apart from any presidency decision at a time, rather it is embedded within the long term policy of the U.S. governance system. This is because Iran has always been a critical point of geopolitical interest for the United States.
During the cold war era, as a resolution to stop the expansion of communism in the Middle East, U.S. along with its European allies, in a Conference in France in January 1979, came to conclusion to establish a green belt under the Soviet Union border by promoting and supporting the anti-atheist Islamic theocrats to take over the government in Iran. Since then the Mullahs’ regime has shown its extreme domestic and global atrocities in at least three fronts, act and support of terrorism, meddling in neighboring countries, and grave human rights violation against its own people.
During the past almost four decades, six U.S. presidents have been the bystanders of the regime’s shocking security threats across the region and the globe and yet not a single countermeasure against it has been instituted. Over time it has become more evident that such inaction and indifference of U.S. presidents has nothing to do with any individual U.S. government’s lack of will in responding to these unprecedented threats but has emanated in long term U.S. policies, which sought strategies far into future. These long term policies, per domestic and global necessities, are usually modified or changed over the course of a decade or so and has little to do with a single U.S. government’s dogma at a time.
About four decades of appeasing Iran policy has been carried out by six U.S. presidents. Regardless of the Iranian grassroots discontent, they have made all the supportive efforts they could to keep the mullahs’ regime well and alive. Why?, because firstly, the neocolonialism loves to deal with imbecilic Islamic mullahs whom at the very least, per their Sharia among other things, are against the nationalism, a key-code and an invitation card for an easy foreign aggression. And secondly, the apocalyptic IRI regime can easily be used as a wrecking ball to do the U.S. dirty job of destroying the region. How long this policy will continue? is it going to change at all? if so, when? All the evidence suggests that for no less than another term of the U.S. presidency, regardless of whoever is the next U.S. president, the ongoing chaos in Middle East is not only going to continue but will spread all over the region in general and to Iran in particular. Remember this is part of the long-term U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, which tends to change the current regional borders once established by the Sykes–Picot agreement, exactly a century ago. [DID]
At least now the betrayal is out in the open.
For years, Syria’s revolutionaries have suspected America’s lack of meaningful support for their uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad was tied to President Barack Obama’s desire to re-engage with Iran.
Iran is Assad’s primary patron (though Russia, which has been bombing on his behalf since September, is a close second). Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria, as are soldiers of Iran’s proxy Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, along with Shia irregulars from Afghanistan and Iraq whose passage to Syria Iran facilitates.
Defeat for Assad held the prospect of dramatically weakening Iran’s influence in the Middle East, a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy for decades—until Obama changed it.
In a remarkable New York Times Magazine profile, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, does not explicitly link Obama’s abandonment of Syria with Washington’s outreach to Iran, but he frames the importance Obama placed on rapprochement with Iran in a way that makes it difficult to avoid concluding the two were connected. Read more…
Over more than three-and-a-half decades, six U.S. presidents, under nine terms of presidency, one after another have been the bystanders to the crimes of the Mullahs’ regime against its own people, its active sponsorship of terrorism abroad, and its regional hegemonic role, and in turn have done nothing to confront and stop the evil act of such rogue state, Nothing! Zilch! Zero! On the contrary, they have cowardly sided with this evil. At some point one may think that the lack of bothered leaders by their conscience has sapped the will of governments in responding to these unprecedented acts of atrocity against humanity, but that cannot be the case, six presidents and all were inept leaders? No, that is not it.
The fact of the matter is that U.S. have been pursuing the long-standing policy of using the terrorist state (IRI) and non-state (ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc) as wrecking balls to demolish the Middle East infrastructure by creating the sectarian war among Sunnis and Shia faction. United States along with its European allies not only do not confront the terrorism but directly and indirectly provide it with all the necessary vital economic and strategic instruments to keep it alive and active in its role of destroying the regional civility.
Such bulldozing will force the migration of local intellectual and patriotic societies to outside the regional borders; make the territory ready for non-resistant and easy plundering of its natural wealth by the greedy World Powers. By the same token, the fearful demolishing war is also used as a scarecrow for the neighboring states to benefit the World Powers by ordering humongous number of arms sales under the pretext of defense, thus providing a vehicle to promote their economy. The destruction of the region will continue until at some point the world community (i.e., UN) is forced to step in and present a plan to divide the territory into smaller states by imposing new borderlines. The new landscape of the Middle East map will of course preserve the geopolitical interests of the World Powers. The funny thing is that at the end of this chaos, which probably take a decade or two, these Great Powers will come back for reconstruction of the ruins of war, another way of economical scam.
Imperialism changes its version of presence but never fades away as long as there is no sincere resolute to end it. It becomes maleficent when combined with unfettered capitalism, turns a blind eye on humanity and ruins everything on its way to develop into an inhumane machine. [DID]
The barbaric terrorist attacks in Brussels were a clear reminder of the growing threat of Islamic extremism. This vicious ideology continues to take new forms – once al-Qaeda, now ISIS, both with the shared goal of creating an “Islamic state” capable of enforcing Sharia law and undermining the achievements of the civilized world.
While the Sunni version of fundamentalism desperately seeks to achieve this objective, the Shiite version in Tehran has been in place for nearly four decades. It should be confronted, not appeased.
Syria, Iraq, and Yemen have become breeding grounds for ISIS, a blessing in disguise for Tehran because it conveniently justifies the mullahs’ extraterritorial maleficence.
Some in the West continue to pin their hopes on elusive “reforms” within the clerical establishment, despite the fact that the Iranian regime’s regional agenda is, in the words of its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, “diametrically opposed” to that of the international community. Their optimism is fueled by the misguided expectation of political reform in the aftermath of the nuclear deal. Neither the facts nor the evidence support this contention. Read more…
The Presidency’s shoe has been too big for Obama to fill; during his 7 years in White House he hasn’t been instrumental to anything that can minimally help promote the life of people across the world. He has done nothing productive to solve any problem currently the citizen of earth is facing with. He has just been an inept bystander of misery the mankind is suffering to the point that has allowed the ISIS terror movement to become a terror nation. His policy of ending a war is to lose it that is why he is so humble in face of Islam that refuses to use “Muslim” and “terrorism” in the same sentence. He is not only making himself a looser, and he is not only making the once-great nation of America a looser, but he is making the humanity a big looser. [DID]
Last Thursday, President Barack Obama fixed a global audience with either grim determination or intestinal discomfort and declared the islamofascist terrorist cabal known as ISIS had been “contained.” The announcement put him at odds with ISIS itself, which replied to Obama’s profession of progress by launching the worst attack on the city of Paris since the Nazis marched down the Champs-Élysées.
The complete annihilation of a man’s greatest foreign policy “achievement” at the hands of a group that he has repeatedly dismissed as “jayvee” might drive an ordinary man to at least re-evaluate his goals, if not his rhetoric. But our man Barry put “ordinary” in the rearview mirror somewhere between Bill Ayers’ living room and the back nine at Congressional Country Club. Obama responded to the blood-soaked repudiation of virtually every statement he has ever made about ISIS by bringing down the rhetorical hammer — on you. Read more…
There are plenty of passages in the Koran and other Muslim tracts that justify killing the nonconformists who refuse to submit to Islam. Anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, deemed to have insulted Islam according to various rules of Islamic jurisprudence, might be flogged, imprisoned or executed. The truth about the infrastructure of this religion and the real theme of this cult has begun to unfold, conveying the message that “Islam is not a religion of peace but a provocation of uproar” to the public and the citizens of earth.
Islamist Jihadists cannot be stopped by force; in other word killing the Islamist ideologists will not solve the problem as long as the ideology remains intact. The tolerance of religious beliefs and practices outside Islam cannot be possible within Islam unless its doctrine changes track. It is time for Islam to get itself a modern revision that fits the today society and this can only be done by the Islamic leaders in the world. They are the ones that can make their Islamic communities understand the vital need for a change in the Islamic doctrine and that the Quran should be reinterpreted to fit into the current age.
Egypt President, General Al SiSi himself asserted the vital need for such change in his speech addressed to Islamic leaders, part of the speech: “You cannot see things clearly when you are locked in this ideology, you must emerge from it and look from outside in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. We must oppose it with resolve, let me say it again we need to revolutionize our religion. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition; we ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”
The problem is among the western politicians, Obama and western leaders are on denial that Islam principle is the root of terrorism since as part of U.S. hegemonic strategy they have planned to support some of the Islamists in the 3rd-world nations who advocate a leading role for Islam in government. There should be a universal will and support for people like Al Sisi to be able to tackle such an important matter, until then the world won’t see the peace it deserves. [DID]
On the morning after France’s long night of terror, the language of war has been impossible to avoid. President François Hollande declaredthe attacks on Paris “an act of war that was waged by a terrorist army, a jihadist army, by Daesh [the Islamic State], against France.” The Islamic State has hailed the “blessed” operation of its “soldiers” and has vowed continued attacks. Pope Francis has described the current state of events as “a piece” of a piecemeal Third World War.
The weather in Paris today is grim and gray, a reflection of the city’s somber mood. But as the French government prepares for a possible military response, France’s military allies — including the United States — would be wise to do the same. Paris would be within its rights to expect NATO to play a meaningful role in organizing a significant military response to the attacks.
In Brussels, at the political headquarters of NATO, and in Mons, the military “Pentagon” of NATO just an hour south, officials will be working through the weekend. The 28-nation alliance, after all, is founded on one key premise enshrined in the Article 5 of its founding treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked.” It is worth noting that the only country to ever activate Article 5 was the United States after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Read more…
Russia fills the vacuum in Syria and U.S. welcomes it. Contrary to what the mainstream Medias have fed the public asserting U.S. and Russia remain at odds over their objectives in Syria, there has never been a change in US position; in fact there hasn’t been any disagreement between US and Russia on the roadmap strategy in the Middle East. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been planned and exploited by the World Powers in the Middle East to create instability, destruction and chaos throughout the region generating the necessary conditions toward reshaping and redrawing the map of the regional states and their political fragmentation.
Broad economic, strategic, and military objectives are main part of a longstanding World Powers’ agenda in the region. New sources of energy in the Central Asian region, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain giant reserves of natural gas and oil, access to which and sharing in their potential wealth represent objectives that motivate corporate interests, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. It is all about the World Powers’ new world orders, under which New Middle East is created in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives. [DID]
WASHINGTON (AP) — Signaling a possible escalation of U.S. military action in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said Tuesday that the United States is retooling its strategy in Iraq and Syria and would conduct unilateral ground raids if needed to target Islamic State militants.
The U.S. has done special operations raids in Syria and participated in a ground operation to rescue hostages last week in northern Iraq that resulted in the first U.S. combat death in Iraq since 2011. Carter did not say under what circumstances the U.S. might conduct more ground action, but said, “Once we locate them, no target is beyond our reach.”
“We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,” Carter said, using an acronym for the militant group. Read more…
Defining what precisely is meant by grand strategy and how al Qaeda, in particular, views grand strategy is vital for our national security. In fact, grand strategy is intertwined with every policy debate over al Qaeda that is currently ongoing in Washington, D.C.
The questions of what is al Qaeda, and who is al Qaeda have been debated since 2001. More recently, questions have arisen about affiliates and what is their relationship with al Qaeda. Is there any command and control between al Qaeda and its affiliates? What is the proper way to deal with these groups? And can we actually win against them? This talk will seek to add to this debate by offering answers to the questions of what al Qaeda is and what the group hopes to achieve.
WHAT IS GRAND STRATEGY?
We must begin by defining “grand strategy” and by defending the existence of this concept. Grand strategy is the highest level strategy that an organization or country possesses for dealing with a specific problem. Read more…