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…
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans — tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down. Read more…
President Franklin Roosevelt, getting drought information first-hand from families in Julesburg, Colorado in 1936
An effective leadership must have a direction and a strategy to make thing happen. It should engage today’s talent and not stone-age’s wisdom like the kind of pro-Islamic incompetent governance that we are witnessing in White House today. It should present a policy of openness and transparency to promote individuals’ rights and freedom of expression contrary to the kind of political-correctness dogma that has been imposed upon the American society by the current administration to the point that many adherents of political correctness reject free speech, which has now seized hold of national attention.
A post-Obama president, on domestic issues, from economic, education, and health reform, to immigration rules and gun control, to homeland security, etc., should have the will to do all in his/her power to guarantee the well-being of the American people. On foreign policy, he should re-establish American influence, lead and not follow multilateral bodies, restore defense strength, and commit to the eradication of Islamist terror in all its manifestations, and above all should support the Iranian dissidents in their efforts to change the theocratic regime of Iran, which is known as the main source of global terrorism, for a secular democratic government. [DID]
Many Americans are mad as hell at our political leaders — both Republican and Democrat — and are giving voice to their anger through the likes of Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The anger is understandable. The federal government is paralyzed, unable to tackle any of the major problems facing our country or even accomplish basic functions such as enacting annual budgets for federal departments and agencies. The anger derives equally from governmental ineptitude, arrogance and corruption, and self-serving politicians more concerned with getting reelected than with the nation’s future.
The next president will face major domestic problems, as well as the challenges posed by Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, terrorism and a Middle East in turmoil. What kind of qualities should we be looking for in a new chief executive? Based on my experience working for eight presidents, of both political parties, here is my take: Read more…
Whoever needed additional proof that Iran is laboring hard to help U.S. President Barrack Obama restrain Israel (and that Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan is as dangerous propagandist) just had his wish answered.
On the occasion of his recent visit to Tehran, Erdogan said that the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has said clearly and openly that Iranians and Islamic beliefs do not allow for the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that there was no place for such weapons in Iran’s defense strategy. Read more…