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…
History is doomed to repeat itself due to the lack of effective and capable world leaders, what we have instead are bunch of political dwarfs who are nothing more than elected mercenaries of the one-percent-rich sector, whose only purpose are to preserve their empires of wealth with the cost of pain and suffering burdened on shoulders of the world grassroots.
About two decades ago Bill Clinton’s imprudence paved the way for N Korea to become an atomic power; today the Obama’s naivety and incompetence is setting the stepping stones for the Iranian mullahs to get access to nuclear weapon.
The reality behind these phony agreements is the fact that they are intentionally outlined, by the puppeteers, in a way to keep these bogeymen puppets and their threats alive and going so that the allied States are intimidated by them and make them permanent arm-buying customers for defense purposes. [DID]
North Korea claims that on Tuesday night, it tested a hydrogen bomb. If true, it was a typically aggressive act by an evil regime. The White House said, however, that Pyongyang was doing something quite different, but also typical — engaging in empty boasting to exaggerate the Hermit Kingdom’s martial strength.
Whatever happened on Tuesday night, the reanimated North Korean nuclear threat holds a lesson about what happens when Washington makes agreements with regimes that are, to their core, untrustworthy. It often extends the lives of those regimes and facilitates the crisis it is intended to avert. That, of course, is why the rogue regime is interested in achieving a deal.
In 1985, North Korea signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty so it could openly share in the world’s advances in peaceful nuclear technology. Among the obligations it incurred in doing so was a requirement to disclose its nuclear progress (for example, the amount of weapons-grade plutonium it had produced) and submit to international inspections. 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…
Uncle Sam loves to help out the Islamic terrorists ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, to name a few, he has done it several times during the last few years, allegedly under the pledge of fight against terror. First it was in Iraq, by blocking the deliveries of heavy weaponries to Kurds to fight Islamic State, then it happened in Syria by waiving strikes on ISIS in Raqqa for 10 months, while the ISIS’s exact location was confirmed by the intelligence office. Now Uncle Sam admits he was at fault when his airstrike hits a hospital run by the doctors without borders (DWB) in Afghanistan that killed 22, in other word US completes the job of Taliban & Al-Qaeda, killing the wounded people who were fighting against Islamic terrorists. The DWB lashes out at the US government with this statement: “Today the US government has admitted that it was their airstrike that hit our hospital in Kunduz and killed 22 patients and MSF staff. Their description of the attack keeps changing—from collateral damage, to a tragic incident, to now attempting to pass responsibility to the Afghanistan government.” UN rights chief has noted: “An air strike on a hospital may amount to a war crime.” Funny thing is that NATO led by US urge Russia to stop harming civilians, Syrian opposition! [DID]
KABUL, Afghanistan — A crowded hospital in the embattled city of Kunduz that treats war wounded came under attack on Saturday and the American military acknowledged that it may have killed 19 patients, staff members and others at the facility while firing on insurgents nearby.
The attack, which the military said in a statement might have been “collateral damage” that occurred while engaging militants, drew a fierce international outcry. The head of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, condemned it and called for a “thorough and impartial investigation.” It also renewed scrutiny of the United States military’s record of causing civilian casualties, which has alienated the Afghan public and often undermined relations with the government here.
At least 12 staff members and seven patients — including three children — were killed when the hospital, run by Doctors Without Borders, was badly damaged in the airstrike early Saturday in Kunduz. At least 37 were wounded, and some were flown to Kabul for treatment.
The United States military, in a statement, confirmed an airstrike at 2:15 a.m., saying that it had been targeting individuals “who were threatening the force” and that “there may have been collateral damage to a nearby medical facility.” Read more…
The problem is with the lobbyists’ financial support of the federal government and its influence on the federal systems’ adopted policies. Elections in United States including Presidential, Congressional, and Supreme Court, are all counted on the financial supports by different groups of business controlling market. Moreover, the post-election monetary contributions are continued in almost all branches of the federal system from executive, to legislative, and judicial, which play a detrimental role in their enacted policies. This article, for instance, states that Boeing Company has been a major GOP and Democrat donor; it has provided annual financial allocations to various congressional leaderships and committees. The GOP congressional recipients of these funds in turn consider favoritism in their course of action to make sure the funds will not stopped coming in for the next year, and hence they pave the way for Obama to be authorized to lift the sanctions against Iran. And of course Boeing stands to reap huge money from Obama’s lifting of the sanctions by selling aircrafts to Mullahs.
As long as the lobbyists’ monetary influences in the federal elections and systems’ functions are not stopped, the US government won’t be able to adopt policies in favor of real interests of the people of America and the world. [DID]
Why on earth would Republicans do that?” That is a question I’ve been asked at least a dozen times since illustrating that the GOP has played a cynical game in connection with President Obama’s Iran deal. “Follow the money” is a common answer to questions about political motivation. It may not explain everything in this case, but it is certainly relevant.
This spring, Republican leadership colluded with the White House and congressional Democrats to enact a law — the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — that guaranteed Obama would be authorized to lift sanctions against Iran (the main objective of the terrorist regime in Tehran). The rigged law authorized Obama to lift sanctions as long as Republicans could not pass a resolution of disapproval. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and other GOP leaders well knew, there was no way they would ever be able to enact a disapproval resolution over Obama’s veto. But the process choreographed by Corker-Cardin meant they would be able to complain about the deal and vote to disapprove it — thereby creating the impression that they were staunchly against the lifting of sanctions that they had already authorized. Read more…
Obama’s legacy of disaster will prevail when his Iran deal starts reaping malicious crop and the theocratic regime surprises the world with its nuclear proliferation gift among the Islamic proxies. The terrorist Mullahs will teach US a resentful lesson to remember for decades to come that it should never trust rogue states, in particular those whose despotic rulers wish its people harm. The bitter tragedy is that the resulting burden of the Obama’s foreign policy of eight years passivity and appeasement in dealing with repressive regimes will be extended over the shoulder of the next US president. It is hoped that the next coming president is the one who believes in the democracy advocacy of America and has the capacity and tenacious dedication to stand up against adversaries and oppressive regimes. [DID]
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said on Tuesday night that President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran prioritizes his quest for a personal legacy above the nation’s needs. “Obama’s disregard for the treaty process is the height of hubris,” Cotton said, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
“He mistook his desire for a legacy for a vital national interest,” he added. “It [is] bad precedent to allow a nuclear arms control agreement with a sworn enemy to go into effect without even a bare majority of support.” Cotton’s remarks follow the Senate’s second vote against a resolution disapproving of Obama’s historic pact with Iran. 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 deal is part of America’s “iron-clad commitment to bringing our prisoners home.” “That’s who we are as Americans,” Mr. Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, with the parents of released U.S. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at his side.
He is pinpointing the prisoners and the commitment to bringing them home as if they are the captives of a legal opponent state that US is in war with, undermining the fact that America is in fight with the Islamic extremists. Such way of dealing with terrorism gives the terrorists an incentive to capture even more Americans. This exchange of prisoners will only bolster the terrorists to fight stronger against the US interests in Afghanistan and everywhere else and raising the threat against the global peace and security.
This is not the first time that Obama makes use of appeasement and resorts to terrorists to tackle the national and global security issues, supporting Muslim brotherhood terrorist groups in Egypt and providing them with a permanent voice in White House, assigning the Taliban terrorists an office in Qatar, and offering the stretched-hand and appeasing policy to Iranian fanatic mullahs in dealing with their nuke-armed program are few such examples to mention.
The United States of America is not that strong country, any longer, that once was familiar to the people across the world. Under the current abject leadership it has become a country that lead from behind. It all started with the motto “Yes, We Can”! Yes we can be stupid and make deal with terrorists, yes we can be timid and surrender to terrorism instead of standing strong and fight against it, yes we can be harmonious with terrorism in threatening the global peace and security instead of harness and eradicating it. It sounds like there is a fundamental shift in US policy: America can indeed negotiate with terrorists! [DID]
Amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Top Republicans on the Senate and House armed services committees went so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.
“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement. Read more…
During her tenure as Secretary of State besides bunch of empty rhetoric such as those of GWB’s “To Iranians freedom fighters, you are not alone, ……. US stand with you. blah blah”, which every time ended up with more mass murder of young Iranians by the brutal IRI regime, Hillary Clinton never did anything genuine for the benefits of the oppressed people of Iran. Not only she did not help the Iranian grassroots with their struggle for reaching freedom and democracy but literally promoted the trend of brain drain in Iran by encouraging Iranian students to get out of their country and come and study in the United States. In other words, this is what she really meant: “Hey kids you are not going to have a land for living and studying for some years if not decades to come, so get ready to get out of that country!!!! See we are here to help you out!”
Like her x-boss, Obama, Hillary has followed appeasement policy in dealing with the terrorist mullahs in Iran and on many occasions has expressed her inclination for bilateral talks with them. Furthermore at some point of her tenure she expressed her faith in criminals Mir Hussein Mousavi and Karoubi and hoped for some effort by them to take hold of the apparatus of the state.
Hilary’s claim on taking credit for imposing sanctions on Iran to force mullahs to come to the negotiation table is ridiculous and just propaganda. Records show that most (if not all) of the US sanctions on Iran during the past years came from the Congress, whereas opposing administration and State Department were forced by pressure from Senate to reluctantly approve them.
As with her x-boss, Hillary’s vision of America’s role in the world does not go beyond “leading from behind”, which characterizes her passivity, submissiveness, and lacking any guiding strategy. The State Department response to North Korea’s defiance (launching multiple rockets & conducting a nuclear test) was a defensive crouch that Hillary called “strategic patience”. Her knowledge of the vulnerability of the American diplomats in Benghazi and her carelessness to do anything about it, which resulted in their death, is her pattern of indecisiveness in pivotal national matters. It was she who pushed a “reset “button on the Russian-American relationship, a gesture that has been followed by broad hostility and calculated Russian oppositions to American interests.
There are strong rumors that Hillary is getting ready for the 2016 Presidential election; she has already started to present herself as a candidate. So be careful don’t be fooled by political gesture of Hillary, she has shown herself to the world as a feckless State Department Secretary during the first term of Obama Presidency. Her role as a president would even be worse than of Obama’s, if Obama is the king of inaction she would be the queen of indecision. [DID]
The former Secretary of State claimed Wednesday she was responsible for tough sanctions on Iran. But while they were being crafted, her State Department opposed them again and again.
Hillary Clinton is now claiming to be the architect of crippling sanctions on the Iranian economy. But during her tenure as Secretary of State, her department repeatedly opposed or tried to water down an array of measures that were pushed into law by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
Speaking at the American Jewish Committee on Wednesday, Clinton said that she and President Obama faced a “hard choice” when deciding to both reach out to Iran and increase the pressure on the Iranian government and economy, a not so subtle pitch for her upcoming memoir Hard Choices, which hits bookstores next month. She portrayed the multi-year effort to impose several increasingly tough sanctions measures against Iran as largely led by the administration. Read more…