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…
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…
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…
All along DID editorial has asserted that Obama administration has been playing a conspiracy theory in the Middle East region, which has 3 acts, act one: balancing powers among sectarians, act two: engineering sectarian wars, and act three: redrawing the new blueprint for the region.
Act one, since Sunnis outnumber the Shiites in the region there has been a need to make a power balance between the Sunni groups and Shiite factions. US has been working toward the benefits of Iranian mullahs from the beginning of the IRI establishment. Over time US has allowed the apocalyptic mullahs to export their ideologies outside Iran border to make bases around the region such as its establishment in Lebanon, the terrorist group of Hezbollah. US invasion of Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was actually an initial strategy to boost the political power of the mullahs’ regime in the region. Then endorsement of the Iranian mullahs’ puppet, Maliki, as the Iraqi PM in spite of the victory of Ayad Allawi’s predominantly Sunni alliance in 2010 Iraq’s national election, was part of the US administration efforts to broaden the regional power of the IRI regime. Then it was the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, which again was formulated to let the Shiite regime to dominate the region.
Act two, the conspiracy has been to manipulate sectarian war among Sunnis groups and Shiites factions. Syria crisis and more than 3 years of US inaction policy while giving the green light to the criminal Mullahs’ regime and its terrorist proxies to interfere in the Syrian civil war to help Assad stay in power, and on the other hand permitting the Islamic Sunni extremists join the battle and turn the country into a source provider of terrorism in the world, to the point of terrorists’ spill over into the neighboring countries such as Iraq, are all articulate the veracity of such insane intrigue theory. But above all this recent announcement of a US joint plan with mullahs’ regime to resolve the Iraqi crisis is just ludicrous. For more than a decade the Mullahs’ regime has been the mastermind behind the Maliki government’s policy of imposing sectarian discrimination in Iraq against the Sunnis sections, how US can expect this criminal regime to, all of a sudden, change its inimical conduct in dealing with Sunnis groups and play a positive role of mediation to resolve the crisis, whose blame goes to the regime itself. Isn’t it naïve to say that US does not know the IRI regime, this most threatening terrorist State in the world?
Act three, so far we are around the end of the act 2. The last act of this theatrical play, redrawing the new blueprint for the Middle East, which requires for the whole region to be turned upside down, is yet to come. However Iraq would be among the first States to get its new divided look with new smaller territories under different names. The play continues, your patience is advised. [DID]
Over the weekend, news broke that the United States is planning on discussing the growing chaos in Iraq with the government of Iran. Iran has already offered to send in its elite IRGC troops to help counter the Sunni al Qaeda offshoot, ISIS, that is spreading across Iraq with little resistance from Iraq’s own armed forces. Three points:
1. Iran’s own offer is a classic Tehran style operation, the analog of its behavior in Beirut in the 1980s, when Iranian proxies took dozens of hostages (including Americans) and Iran offered to help “negotiate” for their release. The regime of the Islamic Republic is in large part to blame for the chaos now engulfing the region. The people of Syria took to the streets to overthrow Iranian protégé Bashar el Assad. If Iran had simply stepped aside, a peaceful revolution might have taken place in Syria. Instead, Iranian troops, advisers, proxies and arms flowed into Syria, helping ignite the civil war that has claimed 160,000 lives. That war, and the Sunni extremists that joined the battle, were the spark that ignited the flames now sweeping Iraq. Of course, there are other circumstances, including Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s own political mistakes, as well as Barack Obama’s decision to ignore growing turmoil in the region, but Iran has played no small part in the tragedies now unfolding. Read more…
The bloodbath in Syria initially began with peaceful protests at the end of January 2011. U.S. could have acted to shape the Syrian opposition into an effective force to prevail. Direct intervention then was neither necessary nor desirable. The cost of assisting Assad’s opponents with logistic and strategic support at the beginning would have been minimal compare to the accumulating cost of American inaction. Obama’s foreign policy of leading from behind meant nothing more than leaving behind the desperate Syrian people in the middle of an unequal fight, making them to turn elsewhere for help and wind up beholden to and manipulated by many adversary groups and States to U.S.
As a result today we witness the ISIS terrorist group in Syria is spilling over into Iraq, turning the country into a civil war. That has been the result of Obama’s “Watch and Wait” policy. The scenario is repeating again but this time in Iraq, once more we hear the same old stuff from White House and the administration that US will not interfere in Iraq but provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees and displaced people and perhaps delivering some material support. What would be the result? Iranian mullahs will send their terrorist IRGC militias into Iraq to get into the fight against the ISIS group and safeguard the security of the Shiite Shrines. Soon the war in Iraq will escalate and spill over into the neighboring countries that can easily develop into a regional war.
One way to see how all this has happened is to blame the inaction policy of the West led by US, but I personally don’t see it that way. I don’t think that the West is that naive to shoot itself in the foot; I believe this has been the result of a carefully plotted master plan by the West to make the regional adversary groups and States to unknowingly do their dirty job of plowing the region by manipulating and engineering sectarian conflicts among them, Sunni blocs against the Shiite factions. The prerequisite for implementing the blueprint for redrawing the new borderlines in Middle East requires chaos and anarchy in the territory, collapsed civilizations, and fallen States, and that is exactly where the region is heading to. [DID]
AVOIDING aggressive questions is a hallmark of the White House press corps. So it should be no surprise that reporters watching President Barack Obama make an emergency statement on Iraq on June 13th failed to pelt him with the queries that lurk at the center of the debate over America’s role in the Middle East. Namely: Mr President, did you help to bring these horrors about when you rushed to pull American combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible? And, Mr President, does any part of you regret ignoring pleas to arm and train non-extreme opposition forces across the border in Syria over the past two years?
Instead reporters allowed Mr Obama to explain why American involvement in Iraq would be limited, would take “several days” to be sent, would not involve any return of ground troops and was conditional on Iraq’s central government coming up with a “sincere” political plan to resolve sectarian divisions. “We can’t do it for them,” Mr Obama said severely.
“Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos. The United States will do our part,” he added. “But understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems.” Read more…
US have a history of creating and supporting terrorists logistically and strategically around the world, which initially started with Ben Laden and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Khomeini’s regime in Iran. The rouge state of Iran has recently benefited financially by the sanction relief through the interim agreement with U.S., they have been using the money to strengthen their bases in Syria, which has helped Assad to not only stay in power but to claim as the head of the State in Syria for the next 7 years. On the other hand U.S., after more than 3 years inaction and abandoning the genuine oppositions at the beginning of the Syrian uprising, have started providing material support for the allegedly Syrian rebels. However the long-due support for the Syrian oppositions has bought time for the Iranian mullahs’ terrorists, Al-Qaeda groups, and Islamist terrorists of almost all kinds to get the chance to merge into the conflict.
Saudi Arabia on the other hand while rebuking the America’s mideast policy decides boosting support for the Sunnis rebels fighting in Syria and of course U.S. doesn’t mind that. To let the sectarian conflict escalate and turn it into a regional war, U.S. gives American missiles to Iraq’s President, to let its Shiite-dominated forces to use them and kill Iranian mullahs’ Sunni enemies. Now there is a strong speculation that U.S. has paid cash ransom to Haqqani terrorist network operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get the group to free the American POW.
U.S. hegemonic strategy in the Middle East has been changed; due to the economic hardship and lack of public support it does not make use of force any longer, instead it operates on undertaking secret manipulation, colluding, and bribing among different sectional and religious fanatics in the region to turn and agitate the ongoing sectarian conflict into a regional war. In the coming months the world will witnesses an upside-down Middle East that would have inevitable drastic consequences on the global security and peace. [DID]
Reported details of the high-profile prisoner swap that freed Bowe Bergdahl over the weekend are not telling the full story, according to a high-level intelligence official involved in efforts to find and rescue the Army sergeant.
The Haqqani Network, a terrorist group operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan, freed Bergdahl on Saturday after holding him captive for five years in exchange for the release of five Guantanamo Bay prison inmates.
A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up.
The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner. Read more…
There is no doubt about the fact that the Islamic regime in Iran is the mother of all terrorism in the world for more than three decades since its establishment in Iran. The regime has carried out numerous acts of terrorism against the US interests directly by the IRGC militias or indirectly through its terrorist proxies Hezbollah, which ended up with the death of hundreds of American soldiers and servicemen across the Middle East. The mullahs’ regime has been meddling in neighboring countries from Lebanon and Gaza Strip to Iraq and Afghanistan and Arabian Peninsula. The IRI benefits from creating chaos and disorder among Arab world. The IRI has officially been labeled as a State sponsored terrorism by the US State of Department.
The Islamic regime has largely expanded its authority in Syria, which is considered its most important battlefront today. By sending Islamic IRGC militias and Hezbollah guerrillas to Syria, the mullahs in Tehran have managed to keep Assad’s regime in place.
On his speech on Wednesday at West Point, Mr. Obama said “For the foreseeable future the most direct threat to America at home and abroad remains terrorism.” He singled out Syria, which he said was becoming a haven for extremists and pledged to ramp up support for Syria’s opposition fighters.
Now contemplate this scenario: Obama has been using a stretched-hand and appeasing policy toward mullahs’ regime to curb its nuclear arms program, while in the meantime the mullahs’ militia terrorists are fighting in Syria against the Syrian oppositions, whom the US administration pledges to provide support for! The irony of this foreign policy cannot be missed!
The Iranian mullahs have claimed the country Syria as their own 32nd state and will spend the financial support they receive from US through the sanction relief to strengthen their position in Syrian battlefront till a complete victory for Bashar Al-Assad is accomplished. US also provide materials support and conventional warfare for the Syrian oppositions who are fighting with the mullahs’ militias. In other word, US is playing the part of dare devil pursuing a paradoxical policy that provide fuels to the war to keep its flame burning, which only result in unleashing the force of a broader terrorism that can easily spread beyond the regional borders. Go Figure! [DID]
It’s rare when a commencement speaker tells graduates he’s doing his best to diminish their career opportunities. Yet to a military stretched thin by a decade at war, President Barack Obama’s message at West Point’s graduation was doubtless welcome.
“U.S. military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance,” Obama said. In laying out his vision for the U.S. role in the world, the president aimed for the well-trod high ground between isolationists and interventionists. His last effort to get there, a peevish exposition at a news conference in the Philippines, wasn’t very convincing. His presentation was more polished today, but it’s unlikely to tamp down criticism of his conduct of foreign policy as weak, indecisive and unconvincing. Read more…
Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world; he wants to have as little as possible to do with it until he gets out of office. As Syria showed, while he might want to leave the world alone, the world doesn’t seem to feel the same way about the United States. As for Iran, while the administration thinks it has bought six months of “wait and see,” the reality is that, when the clock stops ticking, the West will be no more confident it can shut down the Mullahs’ nuclear program than it is now. His vision of a low-risk and run-out-the-clock strategy made him incapable to stop Russia from annexing Crimea. It’s hard to see that Obama’s foreign policy leading anywhere but nowhere. This is a suggestion for him by some folks: There is just too much time left in office to coast till the end, pack up the Nobel Prize, and move back to Hawaii. [DID]
Confronting critics of his foreign policy, President Barack Obama will soon outline a strategy for his final years in office that aims to avoid overreach as the second of the two wars he inherited comes to a close.
The president will make the case for that seemingly more limited approach during a commencement address Wednesday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The speech will come amid growing frustration in the White House with Republicans and other critics who contend that Obama has weakened America’s standing around the world and faltered on problems across the Middle East and in Russia, China and elsewhere. Read more…
US has a history in making ties with global criminals and terrorists, Jimmy Carter was one of the pioneers in making such ties with the mothers of all terrorists, “Khomeini” and Ben-Laden, in fact he was the one who created them, whose adverse inspirations for more than three decades has fomented the Islamic radicals against the democratic world as we witness today.
US has no shame in sacrificing its own public servants to get its hand over the core elements of terrorism, not to punish them but to protect them, shelter them, and use them for their political purposes. American people haven’t forgotten the death, of their soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by the IRI-made IEDs, of their marines in Beirut by suicide bombing executed by the IRI’s terror proxy Islamic Jihad Org, and of their servicemen by bomb in Khobar Towers by the IRI-supported groups of Hezbollah. In response, Ronald Reagan secretly facilitates the sale of arms to Mullahs (Iran-contra scandal), and sends them a group who carried a bible and his handwritten verse and a Key-shaped cake to symbolize the anticipated “opening” to Iran. During the presidency term of Bill Clinton, he shows his inclination to unite with terrorist mullahs and send Mullah Khatami the message “I would like nothing better than to have a dialogue with Iran”. GWB facilitates the largest US export ever to Iran and his administration gives asylum to IRI terrorist. Obama on other hand uses outstretched-hand policy to engage and bind with terrorist Mullahs.
This is a response pattern of 5 US presidents in a row in dealing with the global terrorism, as a result the spread of the radical Islamic groups of all kinds led by the IRI’ terror proxies and Al-Qaeda takes over the whole world, which has become an insecure place to live for the citizen of earth. The chaos and disorder that has entangled the Middle East in particular and the world in general is merely due to the wrongdoing policies of the US leaders whose scope of their strategies spans over preserving the interests of small groups, while puts enormous burdens on the shoulders of the mankind community. [DID]
The senior former Iranian intelligence officer who quarterbacked the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut and killed scores of Americans was recently living under CIA protection in the United States, a book being published Tuesday says.
Ali Reza Asgari was given asylum by the George W. Bush administration in 2007 after he defected in Turkey, according to The Good Spy, a biography of Robert Ames, a legendary CIA officer who was among those killed in the embassy bombing. In all, 63 people died, 17 of them Americans, including seven other CIA officers. Ames, who had been the agency’s Beirut station chief, was visiting the embassy as the CIA’s top Middle East analyst. Read more…
Would Obama bomb Iran? Yes, and here’s why, says a former adviser to his defense department.
What is worse: Iran with the Bomb or bombing Iran? This is a question we must reconsider as diplomats return to Vienna this week to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.
Of course, we all hope that the negotiations will result in a lasting diplomatic accord that resolves the Iranian nuclear challenge once and for all. The election of a new and more pragmatic Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, last August and the successful conclusion of an ‘interim’ nuclear pact in November mean that the prospects for a ‘comprehensive’ settlement have never been brighter. Read more…
Before the end of 2014, China will have become the world’s largest economy. For the first time since 1872 — when China overtook Britain — the United States will not top the list. This news amid data published last week by the International Comparison Program, a respected institution hosted by the World Bank, came as a surprise. The hierarchical shift of the world’s most powerful economies wasn’t expected to happen until 2019.
But this goes beyond just the field of economics. America’s domination faces more challenges ahead. Though the United States does not yet have a rival when it comes to foreign policy, Washington’s voice is not as strong as it had been for over 70 years. Read more…