Tag Archives: Barack Obama

A Disaster called Obama’s Middle East Policy

Obama Foreign Policy Disaster in Syria and Middle East

With each passing day, it gets more and more difficult to ignore the monumental disaster that Obama’s foreign policy actually is. Nowhere is its utter failure more glaringly evident than in the Syrian Civil War.

But first, let us not underestimate the pathologies of the Middle East that have led to the present disaster in Syria, but Obama administration’s policies have created perils that we would be dealing with, in decades to come.

The geopolitical vacuum created by President Obama’s push to shrink America’s footprint in the Middle East has quickly been filled by Comrade Putin’s soviet-style jackboots. And President Obama-backed Nuclear Deal has single-handedly contributed billions of dollars to Islamic Republic of Iran’s war chest geared at funding global terrorism and regional adventures.

Five years into the conflict, Syrian Dictator Assad is only hanging on to his power thanks to the massive military and political backing from Moscow and Tehran. With the help of Russian military support, Assad is now redrawing the frontline to his own advantage. As Assad lays sigh of rebel stronghold Aleppo, the “moderate” rebels now look to be on their last legs. So far, Assad has been more inclined squeeze the “moderate” rebels, whom he considers as soft targets, than to go after the evil of Islamic State.

By betting on his stooge Assad, Russia’s Putin is looking more and more like a winner. Putin’s gains comes at a cost to the U.S. and its Western allies. The debacle is so great that even the mainstream media cannot afford to ignore it any longer.

In a recent article, London-based Financial Times attacked Obama administration of a “bungling mix of action and inaction” that “opened a vacuum into which Russia opportunistically leapt.” Financial Times writes:

After Russian president Vladimir Putin sent his air force into Syria in September, the tide of war turned in favour of Bashar al-Assad, whose regime had started succumbing to Sunni rebels over the summer. It was plain from the outset that Russia was targeting this threat — not the jihadis of Isis. What is abundantly clear now is that Moscow is eliminating any alternative between the regime and Isis, razing the liberated areas of Syria that might nurture one, and driving out a new surge of refugees who have run out of places to hide. Mr Putin is going about this systematically.

For five years Syrians have suffered as the Assad regime bombarded hospitals, schools and bakeries, attacked water and power supplies, and obliterated rebel-controlled civilian enclaves. But much of this barrel-bombing and shelling was indiscriminate. Russia is discriminating carefully in its targeting of civilian infrastructure. For Mr Putin, evidently, Aleppo is no different to Grozny.

Some Arab leaders, with bitter resignation, point out that the Russian president is nonetheless heading for a Pyrrhic victory. If he and his allies — mainly Iran-trained and led militias — succeed in encircling Aleppo, he will have salvaged for his Assad clients a rump state in western Syria. The rest of the country will be a wasteland dominated by Isis, on which the Russians and the regime have barely laid a glove. Neither legitimacy nor stability will follow. The Assads will still head a minority regime; and although the population will have diminished sharply, it will still be overwhelmingly Sunni. The chronic manpower shortage of the government’s forces, made up for now by Hizbollah paramilitaries, Iranian revolutionary guards and other Tehran-aligned fighters drawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, will not change.

The article also debunks President Obama supporters’ claim that the administration was justified in staying out of the Syrian conflict, saying “[President Obama in fact] did get involved,” reminding the readers of the “red line” U.S. President had set for Assad in August 2012, if the dictator was were to used chemical or biological weapons.

All the tough talk from the U.S. President came to nothing when Assad actually went ahead and used the deadly nerve gas against his people, killing more than a thousand people in an attack back in August 2013 – exactly one year after President Obama drew the now-infamous “red line.”

As Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, told a Senate committee last week; Assad had not parted with his chemical stockpile, and continues to use them on the battlefield in blatant violation of the international agreement reached in the aftermath of Assad’s deadly chemical attack.

Syrian Dictator knows that as long as President Obama is in the White House, he can get away with anything. The tragedy and the farce of it all is that even a third-world dictator is now able to call Obama administration’s bluff.

IRAN’S PROXIES TO CREATE “ISLAMIC REPUBLICS”

Obama’s Dollars flow to expand Islamist ideology of Iran and its proxies.

Iran has created an Islamist empire through its loyal proxies in dozens of countries. More recently, these Iranian Islamist proxies have become empowered and emboldened to an unprecedented level. Their leaders are publicly announcing their desire to create Islamist states, which are modeled after the Islamic Republic of Iran.

For example, this week, the Deputy Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, pointed out in an interview, to a state-owned Iranian outlet, that he truly believes that “Islam is the solution to all of man’s problems, in all places and at all times.” As a result, he contends that it is a “doctrinal and cultural imperative” to overthrow the secular state in Lebanon and set up an Islamic Shiite political system. He also desires the new state to precisely resemble the one created by Ayatollah Rooh Allah Khomeini, the autocrat founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran who tried to establish a political establishment similar to that of Muhammad over 1400 years ago.

Hezbollah is not the only ideological Islamist proxy that is coming out with such blatant announcements. Others of Iran’s proxies−including Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), Badr Organization, Liwa Abu Fadl al-Abbas (LAFA), Kataib Al Imam Ali−have publicly reasserted their mission of creating a state similar to that of Khomenei’s.

Leaders of Hezbollah and other Shiite Islamist groups funded by Iran have made their allegiances to Iran by believing in the concept of “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist) which was coined by Ayatollah Khomeini. The concept of  “Absolute Wilayat al-Faqih” follows that all domestic, social, economic, political and foreign policy maters are in the hand of one person (who is elected by Allah: The Supreme Leader). This is similar to how things were ruled in Muhammad’s era. The Supreme leader has the right to enact, suspend, and abolish any laws based on his discretion, Shari law and Islamic Jurisprudence.

These Islamist groups would also desire to implement Khomenei’s Islamist rules that non-Muslims can not run for high political positions, women should follow the same dress code and Hijab across the country, men ought to grow beards, drinking and listening to music should be banned, stoning of women and executions of homosexuals, political prisoners, and juveniles, to name a few, will become law.

But more importantly, another related question to address is why are Iran’s Islamist groups publicly announcing their mission of creating Islamist state at this particular time?

Well, the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has been on a shopping spree across Europe to reap benefits from the nuclear deal and business deals worth billions of dollars.

Behind closed doors, while human rights demonstrators were protesting the Iranian presidential visit, more than 30 business agreements were signed, with various industries, including petrochemicals, construction, cars, planes, transportation, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, health care, etc. The car manufacturer, Peugeot Citroën, signed nearly a half billion dollars with Iran Khodro and Total made a contract to buy 150,000 to 200,000 barrels of oil everyday from Tehran.

Unfortunately, some European politicians are eagerly welcoming Iranian diplomats. To show their special welcome, some of these politicians even took further steps undermining their own cultural values; for example, the French took the wine off the menu list, Italy covered their nude statues, red carpet was repeatedly rolled out for Mr. Rouhani, and he was invited to most crucial locations in Europe, such as Les Invalides, to speak with business and political leaders.

So, where are these billions of dollars heading? The lifting of the economic sanctions by the United Nations Security Council has empowered the Islamic Republic and billions of dollars are being directed towards Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and supporting Iran’s Islamist proxies−designated as terrorist groups−across the world.

The mullahs are telling the world that they are open for “business.” But, one should not fall in the trap of the hypocrite moderate image that the mullahs and President Rouhani are projecting to the world. To survive and support its Islamist Empire of proxies, the Islamic republic has become moderate only in “doing business” with the rest of the world and enjoying the rewards of capitalism. Nevertheless, Iran’s domestic reality and regional policies do not show any signs of moderation.

The Islamic Republic has executed more than 800 people in 2015, breaking the world record in execution per capita. Iranian journalists, human rights defenders, and bloggers are frequently being imprisoned for expressing their opinion. Even Iran’s foreign policy has not shown any signs of moderation. Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Quds force are operating in Syria and Iraq, helping Assad’s forces, which are involved in wars against humanity, and assisting Shiite militias across the region financially, militarily and advisory.

The mission of Iran’s Islamist proxies−establishing Islamic Republics modeled after Iran−is not a far-fetched ambition. We should not forget that to spread its Islamist ideology, Iran masterfully created political realities, powerful foreign armed forces, and an empire of proxies from these militia groups that were once considered trivial. The socialist politicians should also be cognizant of the fact that helping Iran by any means to receive more dollars, will be contributing directly to advancing Iran’s and its proxies Islamist, hegemonic ambitions, as well as anti-Western and anti-Semitic sentiments.

You Don’t Know What Obama Said at the Mosque

obamas islamic tearsIf you seek to understand Barack Obama and his views, the best place to go is his speeches. But you have to read them in their entirety, not rely on hearing them or on the media’s summary of them. When you do, you realize how often what Obama says is morally and intellectually confused and even untrue.

The most recent example was his speech last week at a mosque in Baltimore. In addition to reassuring Muslim Americans that they are as American as Americans of every other faith — President Obama spoke a lot of nonsense, some of it dangerous.

President Obama: “So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.”

Why did Obama say this? Even Muslim websites acknowledge that “Islam” means “submission” [to Allah], that it comes from the Arabic root “aslama” meaning submission, and that “Islam” is in the command form of that verb.

That’s why “Muslim” means “One who submits,” not “One who is peaceful.”

Obama: “Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Quran.”

The reason Jefferson had a copy of the Quran was to try to understand it in light of what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli had told him and John Adams. When asked why Tripoli pirates were attacking American ships and enslaving Americans, the Muslim ambassador explained that Muslims are commanded to do so by the Quran: “It was written in their Quran that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to Paradise.”

That’s why Jefferson and Adams had Qurans.

Obama: “And how do we move forward together? … It can’t be just a burden on the Muslim community — although the Muslim community has to play a role.”

Most Americans would say that the American Muslim community has to play “the” role, not “a” role in preventing violent Islam from capturing the minds of American Muslims, and in helping authorities identify extremist Muslims.

Obama: “Second, as Americans, we have to stay true to our core values, and that includes freedom of religion for all faiths.”

This is so obviously true that one wonders why the president felt it necessary to mention it.

Obama: “There are Christians who are targeted now in the Middle East, despite having been there for centuries, and there are Jews who’ve lived in places like France for centuries who now feel obliged to leave because they feel themselves under assault – sometimes by Muslims.”

One would have expected that after mentioning “Christians targeted now in the Middle East,” he would have mentioned “Jews targeted now in the Middle East.” That, however, would presumably have been too controversial to say. So, the president mentioned the many Jews in France “who now feel obliged to leave” their country because “they feel themselves under assault” — and then came the corker: “sometimes by Muslims.”

Sometimes? French Jews have recently been murdered, tortured and harassed more than at any time since the Holocaust. And virtually every one of those attacks has been perpetrated by Muslims.

Obama: “We have to be consistent in condemning hateful rhetoric and violence against everyone. And that includes against Muslims here in the United States of America.”

Two facts are relevant here. One is that religious hate crimes are exceedingly rare in America. The other is that in 2014, the last year for which we have data, Jews were targets of hate crimes four times more frequently than Muslims.

Obama: “I often hear it said that we need moral clarity in this fight. And the suggestion is somehow that if I would simply say, these are all Islamic terrorists, then we would actually have solved the problem by now, apparently.”

The president has made extensive use of the straw man — a false target that he then attacks. This is one such example. No one has ever said that if the president were to identify Islamic terrorists by name instead of nameless “violent extremists,” “we would actually have solved the problem by now.”

What drives most Americans crazy is that the president of the United States refuses to name the enemy. And this rewriting of reality filters down. Increasingly, for example, when (and if) 9/11 is taught in American schools, the attackers are never identified as Muslims.

Obama: “And, by the way, the notion that America is at war with Islam ignores the fact that the world’s religions are a part of who we are.”

Another straw man. No American of any stature has said that “America is at war with Islam.”

Obama: “In the discussion I had before I came out, some people said, why is there always a burden on us? When a young man in Charleston shoots African-Americans in a church, there’s not an expectation that every white person in America suddenly is explaining that they’re not racist.”

This point alone should have been publicized by the media — that the president of the United States tells Muslims that they have no moral obligation to condemn violence committed in the name of Islam.

Obama: “American Muslims are better positioned than anybody to show that it is possible to be faithful to Islam … and to believe in democracy.”

That is actually true. Given that theocracy, not democracy, is a central tenet of Islam, if an Islam compatible with democracy ever develops, it will probably develop in America.

Obama: “These are the voices of Muslim scholars, some of whom join us today, who know Islam has a tradition of respect for other faiths.”

Another falsehood. Islam has no such tradition. Islam has always demanded that Jews and Christians be treated as humiliated second-class citizens — when not forced to choose between conversion or death.

Now you know what President Obama said at the Islamic Society of Baltimore. But if you just read or listened to the mainstream media, you would have missed it because none of this was reported. It was all about, as the headline in USA Today put it, “At Baltimore mosque, Obama condemns anti-Muslim bigotry.”

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace

%d bloggers like this: