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: Redneck Jim ||
03/07/2015 8:59 Comments ||
Top||
#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
#3
Because Valerie Jarret, who does all his thinking for him, says so. That's why.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/07/2015 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#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 ||
03/07/2015 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
He needs a friendly country to build his presidential library.
Posted by: George Craque3122 ||
03/07/2015 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#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!
#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.
#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.
[PJ Media] The Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam. Thus we see a steady stream of articles in the mainstream media assuring you that the Qur'an is benign, the U.S. Constitution is Sharia-compliant, and the Islamic State is not Islamic. These articles come in a steady stream, and they have to, because they are asking non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day -- Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts -- and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam the religion of peace and tolerance.
This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, because with every new jihad atrocity, reality threatens to break through. It wasn't accidental that Hitler's Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a full-time job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts. This propaganda comes not just from the Left (the Huffington Post, Salon, etc.), but also from the Right, or at least the Right-leaning media (Forbes); it seems as if whatever divides Americans politically, they're all united on one point: Islam is just great, and only bigoted, racist "Islamophobes" think otherwise.
Yet the pains that must be taken to establish this betray the futility of the enterprise. A sampling: establishment academic Juan Cole, a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), which has been established in court as a front group lobbying for the Islamic regime in Iran, pointed out last Tuesday in The Nation that Rudy Giuliani and Paul Wolfowitz had taken issue with Barack Obama over whether Islamic terrorism was really Islamic, and asserted that this question was "actually about what philosophers call 'essentialism,' and, as Giuliani's and Wolfowitz's own interventions make clear, it is about absolving the United States for its own role in producing the violent so-called 'Caliphate' of Ibrahim al-Baghdadi."
Just a brief recap of the facts:
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims
"Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly… If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it."
"Extermination" ........is unnecessary if the proles can be convinced of the merits of abortion, relocation, mass-immigration, gender reassignment, elimination of the family, man-goat-dog love, etc.
#5
The Western intelligentsia is very, very anxious to make sure that you have a positive view of Islam.
They've already succeeded, they've gotten to POTUS, the MSM and about half of our law-makers. Pelosi was moved to tears during Bibi's speech.
See the list of atrocities in this article that shows how really nice Islam is (sarc). I din't see Pam Am 103 or the kidnapping and murder of USMC Col. William Higgins. There are many more that should be on the list.
#1
According to Stuart Varney, Dan Bongino has coined a new term for this administration... "Government Bourgeoisie". Good one Dan, now lets hope people understand what you just said.
#2
A little late there agent. It's been an oligarchy for a while. Got to keep up the pretense to keep the masses turning over their children to keep them in power.
[Daily Caller] President Obama is like a "battered woman" when it comes to negotiations with Iran, says Dr. Michael Ledeen, a freedom scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Dr. Michael Ledeen photo at right.
Obama keeps returning to Iran because he hopes Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will change. But, of course, he doesn't. Ledeen made this comparison several times while participating in a panel discussion on Iranian hegemony at FDD Friday.
Ledeen's comment was meant to suggest Obama continues to negotiate with the Iranians because he hopes for positive results yet winds up disappointed, according to the senior director of communications at FDD. Dr. Ledeen's analogy may apply to more than simply Iran.
Posted by: Besoeker ||
03/07/2015 01:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#3
So, if the Iran deal is such a great deal why is it such a secret? Is is because it is a very, very bad deal and sucks? Is it because he is basically arming our enemy with nukes? That is called "traitor."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Daily Caller] President Obama is like a "battered woman" when it comes to negotiations with Iran, says 
