RSS

Charges?

08 Feb

The administration of Barack Hussein Obama seldom missed an opportunity to insist that the alternative to the Iran nuclear deal was a war with Iran, a prospect that has now presumably been kicked further down the road. Middle Easterners are not so lucky: They get to fight their wars with Iran right now.

Header

Where America stands on the question of the wars that Iran is fueling across the Middle East has been obscured to some extent by outdated expectations, diplomatic niceties, and deliberate smoke-screens. But it would be wrong to take pro forma statements about America’s alliances with old friends like Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, or Israel at anything like face value. The first thing the Obama Administration did following the recent burning of the Saudi embassy and consulate in Iran by a state-sponsored mob was not to condemn this assault on a longtime U.S. ally. Rather, the White House immediately launched a media campaign pushing the message that the problem was actually Saudi Arabia, and, as anonymous U.S. officials suggested on background, maybe it was time to reconsider America’s regional alliances.

Yet while Obama may hope for convergence, Iran has naturally been seizing the opportunity to leverage U.S. support to advance its own regional interests, which happen to run squarely against the traditional American alliance system. Even more fundamentally, Iran is a revolutionary actor, whose expressed objective is to overturn the existing order and replace it with Iranian hegemony.

True to form, the Iranians used their recent seizure of the U.S. Navy boats and their crew on the day of the State of the Union address two weeks ago to underscore this point, both to the United States and to its traditional regional allies. The newspaper Kayhan, a mouthpiece for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, ran a telling headline about the detention of the sailors, describing the episode as, “the humiliation of the godfather of the Gulf emirates.” The message is clear: Iran is manhandling America with impunity. Allies and clients of the United States have been put on notice.

Hence, the administration has found itself repeatedly acting as Iran’s lawyer, excusing and justifying its behavior, legitimizing its ambitions, and instead lashing out at old regional allies. These dynamics, which the administration set up in order to cooperate with Iran, were codified in the JCPOA and give Iran substantial leverage to determine the terms of the U.S.-Iranian relationship. Insofar as Obama has made the nuclear deal and cooperation with Iran his signature, legacy-setting policy, the United States must act as Iran’s advocate in the region, lest the deal and the promise of cooperation collapse. Sustaining the deal with Iran and gaining its cooperation in the region therefore requires the United States to downgrade traditional allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which are in direct conflict with Iran throughout the region, in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

The Obama pitch is that American allies should put aside their concern with Iranian expansionism and instead cooperate with Tehran to fight the “real” danger facing the region and the world: Sunni extremism.

In Iraq, the United States not only backs a government deeply penetrated by Iran, but also actively cooperates with Shiite militias run by the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (IRGC). A similar set-up, albeit on a much smaller scale, exists in Lebanon, where the United States is providing support to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which act as an auxiliary force in support of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based long arm of the IRGC. The collaboration is such that the administration has used the LAF to indirectly pass on intelligence that has benefited Hezbollah. The pretext is the same: fighting ISIS and (Sunni) extremism.

After retreating from its position that Bashar Assad must go, the administration is now working to compel its old regional allies and the rebel forces they support in Syria to effectively surrender and adopt its agenda: stop all operations against Assad and focus instead on fighting ISIS. Hence, under this pretext, the administration is pressuring Turkey to shut down its border, including a strip north of Aleppo vital to continued logistical support for rebel groups that are fighting Assad, the Iranians, and ISIS. Simultaneously, the administration is working with the Syrian franchise of the PKK, which is fighting against Turkey.

The “combating ISIS slogan” has proved useful to Iran’s Russian partners as well, as they are cynically using it while actually targeting all anti-Assad rebel factions and civilians alike.

The result of this policy is that Iran is allowed to protect its “equities” in Syria, as President Obama put it, while Washington’s former allies are pressured to recognize and come to terms with an Iranian victory in Syria at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Iran’s projection of influence in the region is structurally dependent on destabilizing factors and assets—namely, sectarian militias that dominate weak states with fractured societies. Preserving the bridge for Iran’s presence in the eastern Mediterranean, for example, is predicated on sustaining a minority dictatorship in Syria, whose continuity in turn is based on the permanent subjugation by force of the Sunni Arab majority. And so, protecting Iranian “equities” in Syria means, by definition, the perpetuation of war, continued support to Hezbollah, and a continued flow of refugees into neighboring states and Europe.

Put differently, the people of Syria will continue to die and flee in large numbers. Only with the president’s Iran policy, the United States is now actively cooperating with the actor most responsible for their death and misery.

And the leftists in America, who would vote even for Bernie, wanted the World Court to charge and convict Geo. Bush for crimes against humanity?  Where are they now?

Why, then, should Barack Hussein Obama not be tried under that same rules?  Along with the charge of Treason at home?

more here.

Advertisements
 
8 Comments

Posted by on February 8, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

8 responses to “Charges?

  1. rogerunited

    February 10, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    ‘But it would be wrong to take pro forma statements about America’s alliances with old friends like Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, or Israel at anything like face value.’

    Our allies are only allies so long as they’re useful to the current regime in DC. All of America’s allies should know this, just ask Mubarak, Hussein and Gaddafi
    Sounds like Obama and his crowd might be Shia; either that or ‘they’ are done with the Saudis who are running out of oil anyway.

    ‘The “combating ISIS slogan” has proved useful to Iran’s Russian partners as well, as they are cynically using it while actually targeting all anti-Assad rebel factions and civilians alike.’

    Is combating ISIS not a pro Assad position? Why wouldn’t they target anti-Assad factions?

    ‘Preserving the bridge for Iran’s presence in the eastern Mediterranean, for example, is predicated on sustaining a minority dictatorship in Syria, whose continuity in turn is based on the permanent subjugation by force of the Sunni Arab majority.’

    Right. A minority dictatorship in a multi-ethnic, religiously divided country; a minority dictatorship that protects the Christian minority, a minority dictatorship that prevented sectarian violence. Yeah, sounds totally evil. I’m sure Syria would be better off with lunatic jihadis in charge.

    ‘Put differently, the people of Syria will continue to die and flee in large numbers.’

    The author is telling us that people in Syria will continue to die and flee as long as Assad’s more-or-less secular regime is in power, but if we let the Sunni jihadis take over somehow things will be better? I don’t think so.

     
    • rogerunited

      February 10, 2016 at 8:23 pm

      You might find this old article interesting.

      http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3728/germany-new-ottoman-empire

       
    • Soffitrat

      February 10, 2016 at 8:55 pm

      The vacuum… Something the amateurs of the ruling Democrat party knew nothing about. They are finding out the hard way, and we (and Europe) are going to pay a high price for their ignorance. What bothers me the most is that they either don’t seem to be learning, or this was their goal from the beginning. What do you think? Which one do you think it is?

       
      • rogerunited

        February 10, 2016 at 9:06 pm

        I tend to think there are no accidents in politics. The most reasonable thing I can come up with is trying to make Iran an American ally to weaken Russia.

         
        • Soffitrat

          February 10, 2016 at 9:28 pm

          Is the International Criminal Court (ICC) funded by Germany, and why would we support Germany to the extent we have, are questions your article has raised. We know the Saudis are running out of oil and Iran is coming on-line. But, is it not already too late to court Iran? Even if it weren’t, why would we want to? Perhaps our amateurs think that China, not Russia, are our real foes? Whatever they think, they will probably be wrong.

           
        • rogerunited

          February 11, 2016 at 8:20 pm

          I think both Russia and China are foes, they both want the top dawg position we currently hold.

           
        • The Soffitrat

          February 11, 2016 at 8:27 pm

          I agree. Even though they have set up new trading pacts, they have never trusted each other.

           

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: