The absence of any U.S. deterrent role to counter the violation of international norms and standards by the Iranian mullahs have given the Islamic regime the tranquility of living out its dream of regional hegemony and the ability to have its forces dominate Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. These countries are Arabic territories that over time have started to undergo the influence of Shiite regime in Iran. How was the Arab world, which constitutes the vast majority of regional Sunnis, supposed to react to all this? Of course they were not going to stay silent and as the war in Syria has shown, their Sunni extremists were fostered to get into the fight with the Shiite-supported regime of Assad. But then the war in the country started to expand as other groups of Islamic extremists from every corner of the world joined the clashes against the IRI proxies Hezbollah and the Shiite fundamentalists, turning the Syria into a bloodbath hell, which soon started to spill over into the neighboring countries. Early support for the Syrian genuine oppositions at the beginning of uprising could have prevented the current crisis and result in with not only the removal of Assad from power but establishment of a secular democratic government in the country.
There is no question that the current wide spread crisis in the Middle East has been the result of the Obama administration’s inaction policy in the region. The problem with U.S. wait-&-watch policy is that the sectarian war won’t wind up with one’s side victory over another but most probably the Sunni and Shiite extremists could compromise over who gain control of what territory after dividing the region into smaller areas, which will then become terrorist states. Such situations are already imminent developments in Syria and Iraq. Regardless, could such a scenario that violates every global norm and standard be acceptable to the West in particular United States? Could the humanity continue its normal operation alongside dangerous rouge states, whose spread to other areas of the world are just a matter of time? Unless the world has already accepted the start of a universal war, the answer would simply be a big NO.
United States dependency on Middle East oil may have been reduced due to its looming prospect of energy self-sufficiency, yet for geopolitical purposes U.S. needs to keep its presence in the region. The question that we have to ask ourselves is that is it logical to assume that U.S. administration with so many intelligence offices from NSA to CIA along with its hundreds of think-tank centers all over the nation couldn’t initially predict the current Middle East situation in advance? It is naïve to presume that they really had no clue of what was going to happen in the region. On the contrary, the bitter truth is that the U.S. administration has had complete awareness of the situation in the region and actually knew what is going to happen in those territories and by choosing the inaction policy calculatedly let that to happen. Several determinative elements were in the Obama’s calculation to make such choice of strategy, among which, the lack of public support for another war, sequestration and its impact on defense budget resulting in military shortcomings, and the cast of his Nobel Peace Prize’s spell to hold him as a President of peace, are few to mention. However the sectarian war among Shiite and Sunni extremists has given Obama an incentive to stay inactive and make use of wait-&-watch policy and let them do the dirty job of plowing the region for him, which is a prerequisite for the new blueprint of the greater Middle East map per U.S. foreign policy. When the terrorist threat level gets red alert in the region the U.S. and perhaps NATO will ultimately intervene in the Middle East but for now they allow the evil forces of terrorists be engaged in purging one another. [DID]
There’s always Tunisia. Amid the smoking ruins of the Middle East, there is that one encouraging success story. But unfortunately for the Obama narratives, the president had about as much as to do with Tunisia’s turn toward democracy as he did with the World Cup rankings. Where administration policy has had an impact, the story is one of failure and danger.
The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace, for the surge in Iraq had beaten down the al Qaeda-linked groups. U.S. relations with traditional allies in the Gulf, Jordan, Israel and Egypt were very good. Iran was contained, its Revolutionary Guard forces at home. Today, terrorism has metastasized in Syria and Iraq, Jordan is at risk, the humanitarian toll is staggering, terrorist groups are growing fast and relations with U.S. allies are strained.
How did it happen? Begin with hubris: The new president told the world, in his Cairo speech in June 2009, that he had special expertise in understanding the entire world of Islam—knowledge “rooted in my own experience” because “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Read more…
The Obama’s West Point foreign policy confirmed in the end what Iranian mullahs suspected all along that the President was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. In his West Point speech by basing his foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solution he assured the mullahs that his military threats against them have never been credible. Moreover, Obama’s desperate concessions to get the mullahs engaged in the negotiations has given them the impression of having the privilege to achieve their irreversible goal of acquiring a nuclear-armed capability without paying a price as long as they are making the West believe they are truly negotiating.
Obama’s abjection and lack of capability in making the right, bold, and punctual decision in global affairs will be a serious threat to U.S. national security. It is imperative for the U.S. Congress to work closely with the administration on Iran agreement and pursue a direct and constant monitoring of the situation, otherwise the White House and the Congress will be held accountable for a nuclear-armed Iran and the subsequent global chaotic consequences. [DID]
The U.S. already failed to detect nuclear programs on four other occasions: Iraq – 1991, Syria – 2009, North Korea – 2000-1 and Libya – 2005. That is quite a record.
Terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, regularly launch rocket attacks on Israel, but because they are not “recognized state actors” launching rocket attacks on another sovereign state, we do not put the min the same category. All terrorist groups attacking a state therefore get a free pass.
A nuclear device in the hands of such terrorist groups — chosen precisely because they cannot be readily identified as working for, or connected to, a state — can therefore be used in an attack with impunity, totally undermining the assumption that such weapons in the hands of Iran are “only for deterrence.”
Unless we end the Iranian nuclear weapons program now, we will probably only know if a threat is “real” after it is too late.
“Obama is simply less personally engaged in foreign policy matters than any of his predecessors reaching as far back as Herbert Hoover.”
As he enters the Back Nine of his second term in office, President Barack Obama is clearly looking to establish his historical legacy. No doubt, his highest priority is the preservation of the Affordable Care Act, which his Administration views as no less important than Medicare and Social Security. Whether Obamacare will survive in its present form, or even survive at all, of course, remains an open question that will be determined both by the future composition of Congress and by the policy preferences of the next White House occupant.
In addition, it is clear that he wishes to be remembered as the president who defeated Al Qaeda by authorizing the successful operation to kill Osama Bin Laden. This legacy, too, is uncertain. It is not merely the host of unanswered questions about the Benghazi fiasco. More to the point is the fact that Islamic extremists, who are at the center of both the Syrian and renewed Iraqi civil wars, are increasingly assertive and violent in Africa and are far from dormant in Southeast Asia as well.
Finally, and most critically, Read more…
For most commentators, President Barack Obama’s biggest achievement in his four-nation tour of Asia was the enhanced defense treaty he signed with Philippine President Benigno Aquino. The pact permits US forces to operate on Philippine military bases and sets the conditions for joint training of US and Philippine forces, among other things.
There are two problems with the treaty, however. And they reflect the basic problem with US foreign policy generally, five-and-a-half years into the Obama presidency. First, there is the reason that the treaty became necessary.
The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn’t make peace soon, it could become ‘an apartheid state,’ like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.
If there’s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming “an apartheid state,” Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.
Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry’s use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America—and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well. Read more…
President Barack Obama envisioned building a foreign-policy legacy in his second term: a nuclear deal with sanction-strapped Iran, an end to U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas, and a successful pivot to Asia, including a trans-Pacific trade pact.
Fifteen months after his second inaugural, those goals look more problematic, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin have created new crises. Dashed foreign-policy dreams aren’t unique to this second-term president: Read more…
As a reader of Khomeinist global strategies since the early 1980s, and as I have argued over decades in books and articles, Tehran’s regime possesses a much larger nuclear strategy than the simple acquisition of mass destruction weapons. Over the last few years, the United States and its Western allies have been led to focus on the visible part of the Iranian buildup, missing the much greater construct undertaken over several generations of rulers of the same Iranian regime. Since the so-called “Iran nuclear deal” was inked last fall, Washington acts as if it has somewhat halted (or at least slowed) the strategic program of Tehran and thus has been rewarding the Ayatollahs, but the reality flies in the face of this assumption and agreement. Read more…
These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:
- In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of ‘Fucking Zionist, fucking pricks… Get the fuck off our campus.’
- In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.
- At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
- In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.