Link
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Why is Obama so Fixated on a Deal with Iran? |
| 2015-03-07 |
| [IsraelHayom] Why is Obama fixated on Iran? Why does U.S. President Barack Obama so desperately want a deal with Iran? Why is he so fixated on a grand bargain with the Islamic republic, the world's biggest killer of Americans? What explains the president's passion to embrace the radical mullahs of Tehran, despite the fact that all America's traditional allies in the region are calling for him to check Iran's advances? Why the deferential approach that seeks Iran's partnership, instead of its isolation? The question becomes even sharper when you consider the fact that Iran is patently not seeking integration in the Middle East or reconciliation with the West, but rather obviously domination of the region and apocalyptic victory over the West. After all, you don't have to be an expert to discern the expansionist and threatening Iranian strategy. Tehran is seeking to create a land corridor under its domination from the Persian Gulf through Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean. The only missing link in this land bridge of Shiite supremacy is Anbar province in western Iraq, now under Islamic State control. Now you understand why Iranian troops are leading the fight against ISIS in this zone. What is harder to understand are American airstrikes against ISIS in Anbar, which seem to be tailored to match the movements of Iranian ground advances. The clear U.S.-Iranian military coordination in this theater of operations gives lie to Washington's denials that it has already entered into a tacit alliance with Iran. While the defeat of ISIS is a rational American policy goal, acquiescence to Iranian ascendancy in ISIS's stead is not. Nor is American acceptance of the Iranian takeover of Yemen, through its Zaydi/Houthi Shiite allies -- which gives Iran choke-off control of the vital Bab el-Mandeb waterway at the opening the Red Sea. Obama's Washington hasn't even whimpered in protest or concern about this. We also have no indication that in its current negotiations with Tehran the administration has tackled Iranian adventurism in Syria and Lebanon, and along Israel's northern and southern borders. Just the opposite: The administration says that the talks with Iran have been narrowly focused on centrifuges and uranium stockpile limits. Iran's regional subversion (plus its long-range missile capabilities and its human rights record, etc.) has not been on the agenda. I don't believe for a second that Obama truly thinks he can bring about substantial moderation of Iranian diplomatic and military behavior; that by giving Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the comprehensive sanctions relief and renewed international legitimacy that Iran seeks, the Islamic republic will stop being the expansionist and aggressive Islamic republic it is. That's just not believable. Iran has consistently cast its quest for regional power as a movement of "Islamic resistance" against the U.S. and its sidekick, Israel. There is no basis for the assumption that moving to a less polarized relationship with Iran will accelerate a transition toward a more democratic, less theocratic, and less expansionist regime within Iran. On the contrary: A nuclear deal that lifts sanctions without addressing Iran's regional ambitions would have the effect of greatly strengthening Iran's hand. And indeed, an Iranian Islamic empire is emerging in vast swaths of territory, from Shiraz to Sanaa and from Tabriz to Tripoli, right under Obama's nose. So again, what could possibly explain Obama's relentless pursuit of strategic partnership with Iran -- a partnership that is so perceptibly detrimental and dangerous to the West and to Israel and other long-standing American allies in the region? A spate of recent articles by American analysts (Anthony Cordesman, Bill Kristol, Colin Dueck, Eli Lake, Elliott Abrams, Eric Edelman, Jonathan Tobin, Josef Joffe, Michael Doran, Michael Ledeen, Raymond Ibrahim, Victor Davis Hanson, Walter Russell Mead) have sought to plumb the depths of Obama's fervor for rapprochement with Iran. They mostly conclude that the roots of Obama's approach rest in the fairly widespread, basically liberal, and quintessentially leftist convictions that America has for decades been sinful and diplomatically domineering, and must atone for its arrogance through retrenchment and accommodation. Obama shares the progressive aversion to the use of American power. Hence his chronic need to apologize for it. Thus, U.S. Cold War culpability -- in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa, South America and Cuba -- is a burden on America that must be addressed by shrinking America's global footprint, and allowing indigenous, revolutionary movements to legitimately emerge and stabilize. As such, the rules of nuclear non-proliferation are an unfair Western construct and need not apply to Iran. China is an authentic power with vast continental rights. And Israel is an abnormality, a Western outpost of capitalism and privilege where it has never really belonged, an irritant that should be treated like any other country as much as politically possible -- no more. In short, Obama believes that he will be leaving the world a better place by cutting America down to size. To me, this is an insufficient explanation of Obama's symptoms. Nor does it help to call Obama messianic and self-absorbed -- as in George Will's delicious quip this week that "If narcissism were oil, this president would be Saudi Arabia." None of this explains the depth of commitment to a deal with Iran that Obama has evinced since his first day in office (and perhaps, even before taking office, as Michael Doran has sought to show in Mosaic magazine). Nor does it explain the administration's commitment to keeping everybody in the dark about the extent of its apparent pact with Iran. It seems to me that Obama's fervor for Iran lies somewhere much more fundamental: In a deep-seated ideological belief that Islam has a rightful leadership place in the world. Consider the fact that Obama's inaugural address abroad was "A New Beginning," delivered in Cairo in 2009 -- a contrite appeal to the Muslim world for forgiveness and for partnership. Go back and listen to Obama wax eloquent about "hearing the call of the azaan" as a young man in Indonesia, and about the historical achievements of Islamic civilization in algebra and architecture. This is Obama speaking from the recesses of his soul. Consider Obama's refusal to acknowledge the Manichean and irreconcilable nature of the challenge posed to the West by radical Islam; his refusal to even mutter the words "Islamic extremism" or "jihadism"; and his absolute unwillingness to connect terrorism to Islam or even admit that Islamic terrorists deliberately target Jews (like those Jews in Paris' Hyper Cacher grocery). The terms radical Islam and Islamic terrorist aren't in Obama's lexicon because deep down Obama doesn't believe that Western (or Judeo-Christian) civilization is any better than Islamic civilization. No better, perhaps, than even the Islamic State group. Speaking to the National Prayer breakfast in Washington on February 5, Obama said: "Before we get on our high horse and think this [ISIS beheadings, sex slavery, crucifixion, roasting of humans, etc.] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." This is tantamount to saying that the West is rooted in immorality, and that it is time for other, no less moral, and possibly more moral, powers to emerge -- specifically, Islamic powers. It is equivalent to saying that the denouement of America and rise of an Islamic superpower will elevate world politics to a better sphere. It is like saying -- actually this is exactly what Obama is saying! -- that America is ready to legitimize a seismic shift in the global balance of power through a grand civilizational bargain with the ayatollahs of Iran. It is ardor for Islam and sympathy for Islamic ambitions of global leadership, not just distaste for American overreach, that apparently fuels Obama's secretive dash toward a deal with Iran. |
| Posted by:JohnQC |
| #12 He thinks he's the mahdi? |
| Posted by: Boss Noodleman7931 2015-03-07 22:52 |
| #11 obama has a Mullah Complex. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2015-03-07 22:37 |
| #10 Yeah but as soon as he's out of office, he'll claim to be Kenyan so they can vote him in. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2015-03-07 19:36 |
| #9 Because they're muslim. He wants to be the great uniter of the Sunni/Shia schism. Already bowing to Sunni he wants his legacy to be to have also bowed to the Shia. Betcha the negotiations include peace between them. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2015-03-07 17:33 |
| #8 Unless the UN changes it's bylaws no citizens of the permanent security council can be General Secretary. That's not to say they won't change the rules, but I think it more likely the champ renounces his citizenship. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2015-03-07 15:41 |
| #7 You cannot discount the story that Champ's post presidency plan is to lead the UN as Secretary General, a position that gives him continued narcissistic opportunities, and where he can lead a coalition of nations not US allied, revealing a host of things a President knows as he tries to further diminish the impact of Western, and white, civilization on the world. A grifter, a self-defined "victim" and ego-fellated by ValJar and others until he is far beyond rational thought, this man is a walking advertisement for impeachment, something the Republican leaders fear doing, despite the evidence. the icing on the cake would be his public decision to "convert" after he leaves office as a display of moral determination. Years ago I thought the last was silly and improbable, nowadays, not so much! |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2015-03-07 14:47 |
| #6 Why is Obama so Fixated on a Deal with Iran? He needs a friendly country to build his presidential library. |
| Posted by: George Craque3122 2015-03-07 13:36 |
| #5 Because Obamacare didn't work out. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2015-03-07 13:23 |
| #4 Can't forget the way he returned that bust of Churchill to the Brits. The guy does not see himself as a man descended from Western Civilization but rather as an African Muslim. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2015-03-07 10:58 |
| #3 Because Valerie Jarret, who does all his thinking for him, says so. That's why. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2015-03-07 09:20 |
| #2 I believe this familiar foto should explain it. He and Vlad are not enemies, but siblings in open competition. Other enablers include the current cadre of Mooslim Broederbond apologists in and out of the White House and McLean, VA. Link |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-03-07 09:19 |
| #1 Cause he doesn't know what to do. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2015-03-07 08:59 |