"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam ... share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. [A] new beginning." U.S. President Barack Obama, 2009, Cairo
Obama waves to supporters at his farewell speech in ChicagoDarren Hauck/Getty
Long since then, Cairo declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group, even while President Obama respectfully received the counsel of the Muslim Brotherhood established in the United States, professing to be speaking on behalf of all Muslims in the United States. Consulting with the Muslim Brotherhood led Barack Obama to give his full support to Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohammad Morsi, and to abandon America's longtime ally, President Mubarak.
And when the Brotherhood failed to unite Egypt and President Morsi's administration sank the nation further into violent crime and the persecution of Egyptian Christians even as the nation's economy plummeted, another popular uprising mandated the removal of Morsi and the elevation of Egypt's popular top general, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a moderate Muslim who ousted the Islamist Morsi.
The Obama administration reacted in a hostile show of continued support of the Brotherhood and Morsi and the rejection of President el-Sisi's rule, obviously confident that it knew better than Egyptians what was best for Egypt. Before Egypt imploded to remove longtime President Hosni Mubarak, Tehran, whom Mr. Obama had extended his open hand of friendship toward, was beset by a peaceful demonstration by Iranian moderate greens.
President Obama exercised his new beginning options by complete indifference to the crackdown on peaceful and regime-protesting Iranian greens, rather than committing to their support as might have been expected by an administration whose head handily won over the Nobel Committee in Oslo which awarded him the Peace Prize in recognition of the "new climate" Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric had promised the world.
President Obama had asserted how prepared he was to "reach out" to "the Muslim world". He would be the anti-Bush, who had acted "without regard for the interests of others". And then he proceeded to negotiate with Iran's ayatollahs striking a nuclear deal with them that the release of hundreds of billions could be arranged and sanctions lifted if Tehran agreed to set aside for a few years its nuclear bomb aspirations. And so the world was made "a safer place", thanks to Obama's diplomatic skills.
Thrown into the bargain with Iran was a free hand in support of its Syrian proxy with eyes looking the other way as the Lebanese Hezbollah militia beloved of the el Quds division of the Iranian Republican National Guard aided Syria's dictator Bashar al-Assad in his mission to destroy the lives of a half-million Syrian citizens dissatisfied with his tyrannical rule.
The new America led by President Obama ushered yet another support of the Muslim world into Europe to the tune of millions of Syrian refugees flooding Europe in escaping the merciless slaughter of the Syrian president whom the Obama administration abetted by deigning not to establish a no-fly zone over Syria to protect the rebels and Sunni citizens whom the Shiite regime battered with chemical weapons and barrel bombs.
In the process, the Obama administration collegially handed over influence and control to Vladimir Putin and Moscow of the region that he had chosen to neglect and the people who yearned for democracy to be overlooked as, under his tutelage, America took his vaunted direction toward a new world order so hugely beneficial to the Muslim Everyman.
"We need to prepare for a post-American, post-NATO European security order. Our counterparts in Asia need to start making their own arrangements too." "It is going to be messy, costly and dangerous, and a large share of the blame rests with the man now packing up at the White House." Analyst and correspondent Edward Lucas, Centre for Policy Studies, London
Obama gave his farewell speech in Chicago, the birthplace of his fateful political career Scott Olson/Getty
"Together, we have removed the world's most deadly materials from nuclear facilities around the world." "There
is no doubt that if these mad men ever got their hands on a nuclear
bomb or nuclear material, they would certainly use it to kill as many
people as possible." "The single most effective defence
against nuclear terrorism is fully securing this material so it doesn't
fall into the wrong hands in the first place." "This [the P5+1 agreement with Iran] is a success of diplomacy that hopefully we will be able to copy in the future. So long as Iran is carrying out its end of the bargain,
we think it's important for the world community to carry out our end." U.S. President Barack Obama
Surrounded by world leaders, President Barack Obama gave the
peace sign at the end of a nuclear security summit
President Obama reminded the representatives and heads of over fifty nations attending the U.S.-initiated Nuclear Safety Summit that the world would reel in shock should the threat from terrorists planning to launch a nuclear attack ever be realized; such an attack would "change our world", and the threat, he emphasized, is real. Somehow he managed to bypass the other reality, that it might be a country that could unleash that nuclear frenzy, a country like Iran, or North Korea, in a deliberate action to "change our world".
But President Obama is confident that "concrete" steps have been taken as a result of the four successive summits that he personally led, that it is entirely feasible to prevent nuclear terrorism. Concern was expressed by others attending the Washington summit respecting North Korea's program on nuclear weapons. Concern was also expressed over the elephant in the room; the absence of Russia at the summit, since Russia is the second nuclear-arms powerful country in the world. Without the presence of Russia and its willingness to engage, the summit was essentially half-baked.
Yet Mr. Obama agreed; the opportunity and the invitation was given, and obviously spurned. Moreover, that Russia's President Vladimir Putin chose to absent himself, conceivably to avoid having to face questions over financial allocations favouring ongoing military buildups of advanced technological weapons, delivery systems and armoured vehicles over the more pressing concerns over securing sites and reducing nuclear arms, is certainly troubling.
It does not quite represent a vote of confidence in the process and procedure that Prime Minister H
Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan chose to cancel his participation in the summit, using the deadly bombing in Lahore as reason. That bombing should have represented reason all the more for his attendance at the summit. But perhaps like Mr. Putin, he would prefer to sidestep inconvenient questions regarding Pakistan's nuclear facilities in the hands of the military in a country riven with Islamist jihadists, where both the Taliban and al-Qaeda have infiltrated Pakistan's military and intelligence services.
The world can perhaps find comfort in the pablum reaffirmations of world leaders to their commitment against nuclear proliferation. No one present, one can assume, was asked for ideas on prevention and/or containment of rogue countries like North Korea, in possession of nuclear bombs and its hugely successful ballistic missiles component of its arms industry. They do have Mr. Obama's assurance that progress has been made in large parts of the world being free of nuclear materials, citing South America, with Central Europe and South East Asia in hot pursuit.
The world cannot be "complacent", building on its progress slowing the nuclear weapons stockpiles. Returning to Iran, he described the agreement reached as proof of his diplomatic solutions, since it was a "substantial success". Presumably, no one present was ungracious enough to raise the issue of Iran's continued research on longer-range intercontinental missiles, let alone its agreeable relations with North Korea.
All eyes were on Obama (left) as 54
other presidents and prime ministers joined him in Washington
"Today the American people can be proud, because this historic agreement [Paris-UN Climate Summit] is a tribute to American leadership. Over the past seven years, we've transformed the United States into the global leader in fighting climate change." "In 2009, we helped salvage a chaotic Copenhagen summit and establish the principle that all countries had a role to play in combating climate change. We then led by example with historic investments in growing industries like wind and solar, creating a new and steady stream of middle-class jobs." "This would not have happened without American leadership. And, by the way, the same is true for the Iran nuclear deal. The same is true for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The same is true for stamping out ebola -- something, you guys may recall from last year, which was the potential end of the world." "We’re going to defeat ISIL and we’re going to do so by systematically squeezing them... We’re seeing steady progress." U.S. President Barack Obama
Barack Obama holds his last press conference of the year in the briefing room at the White House.
Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
Well, nothing quite like a firm dedication to belief in self, and nothing appears to have diminished or disturbed Barack Obama's self-confidence that he is the living proof that America is still great, remaining the world power it was destined to be, because a Nobel Laureate of his stature on the world stage guided it unerringly, despite occasions when inconvenient things happened in the world; like the 'Arab Winter', like the Syrian implosion, like Libya's disintegration, like Iraq's sectarian war, like the Islamic State, like Iran's nuclear ambitions, like Russia's annexation of Crimea, and above all, like those troublesome attacks by deranged people insisting they are Muslims, but clearly are not.
His legacy projects are firmly in place, and Mr. Obama is satisfied that his place in history is a regal one, that his global leadership on climate change reflects the unwavering courage of an environmental champion. He obviously doesn't recognize the United States as the world's biggest greenhouse gas per capita emitter. China may rate as the largest emitter of carbon, but it also has a population about five times larger than that of the United States. The U.S. emits 60 percent more greenhouse gas than the 28-member EU, and three times per capita that of China.
Coal-burning furnaces remain a dominating source of power generation in the United States, representing 32 percent of electricity generation, and is destined to remain so for the next two decades at least. And while, after seven years of study, President Obama finally refused to permit one single Canadian oil pipeline -- though Canadian oil will still travel to the United States, but by rail, making it infinitely less safer in transmission -- the U.S. proceeded with construction of 8,000 miles of oil pipelines, ten times the length of the refused Keystone project. So much for defense of the environment.
As for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the U.S. has the political power clout to defend its agricultural subsidies, while demanding that others lower or abandon theirs. The TPP, which Mr. Obama hails as an American initiative was in fact in existence, excluding the U.S., long before he assumed the presidency. But he certainly does enjoy taking credit for successful enterprises. Washington's sneak auto deal with Tokyo attempted to cut out Mexico and Canada, but it's doubtful this revelation caused the great man any embarrassment.
As for his lauding America's leadership in dealing with the Islamic Republic of Iran through the P5+1 negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions, no word on giving away the shop to Iranian promises that have never historically been honoured and ridding the world of its concerns about a nuclear-armed, terrorist-driven Iran, because it has the assurance of the United States that nothing can go awry. The International Atomic Energy Agency whom Tehran steadfastly refuses entry to Parchin and other questionable nuclear installations will keep tabs on Iran.
Mr. Obama's administration has failed signally in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, yet he gloats that his leadership has the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on the defensive, and it's only a matter of time before it is eliminated as a terrorist threat. His surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the Syria, the Ukraine and the Iran files are merely a demonstration of the management of crises by a world leader with the confidence to do the 'right thing'. The right thing for this president was to abandon traditional allies whether in North America or abroad.
And this is the message that he celebrates, confident that the historical record will reflect his genius.
Obama's solution? To let Iran
have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, along with
intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. -- or
perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has
been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps
launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the
identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible.
Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be
concerned about that.
We have just sacrificed Sunni stability for American ideology:
empty slogans fed to us by clueless, if well-meaning, American
officials.
As we watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we have
allowed ourselves to be destroyed from within by these bungling
diplomats -- from America, Europe, China and Russia. Instead of keeping
our eyes on the real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful,
unending battles against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian
menace slip out of sight.
Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been
awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in
gratitude for America's surrender.
"Nation building" seems to have fallen into disrepute in the West,
but it should not. It is vitally important -- as the successes of
Germany, Japan and South Korea attest.
Over the past few years, in our foolishness, we in the Middle East
swallowed the deceptive bait of "democracy" dangled before us, even
though we knew that it could not, in the misguided way it was presented,
be implemented in the Middle East.
The idea was superb, but here in the Middle East, possibly in being
impatient to "get credit" before the diplomats' term of office were
over, no one ever took the time to establish the institutions of
democracy -- equal justice under law, freedom of speech, property
rights, the primacy of the individual rather than the collective,
separation of religion and state -- to show us in the Middle East how
democracy actually operates, and to allow those institutions to take
root before ever holding an election.
So eager were Western leaders to take credit right away that they
refused "let the rice bake." Had the West introduced democratic
elections to Japan and South Korea (where they eventually worked
brilliantly) in the same way it muscled democracy into Iraq, it would
never have taken root in those countries either. Had the Germans had
been asked to vote right after World War II, they would most likely have
reelected the Nazis -- that was what they knew. It took seven years to
re-educate the public to understand and accept a Konrad Adenauer.
What seems clear is that we have sacrificed Sunni stability for empty
slogans -- and for clueless, if well-meaning, American officials. As we
watched one stable Arab regime fall after another, we allowed American
ideology to destroy us from within. Instead of keeping our eyes on the
real threat, we exhausted ourselves in wasteful, unending battles
against the Jews -- meanwhile letting the Iranian menace slip out of
sight.
If we try to look at the positive side of the Iran nuclear agreement,
it is just possible that Obama looked at the Sunni Arab states,
fractured and at each other's throats, and at the ruthless terrorist
groups gaining ground in the expanding battle zones, and decided that we
were too fractious for the U.S. to protect.
Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have been
worsening the situation in the Arab world by funding Sunni terrorist
organizations, thereby putting it on a course of complete chaos. Despite
Arab wealth and power, we have been dealing almost exclusively with the
marginal issue of Palestine and the Jews, to excuse our inability to be
effective in giving U.S. President Barack Obama what he really needs:
regional stability.
Obama sees Iran and its terrorist organizations, which are all
unified, organized and obedient, opposing the Sunni Arabs. Obama may be
betting on Iran to bring order to the Middle East.
Imagine if we and our fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organizations
had actually focused on stopping the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon
and Yemen. Imagine if we had abandoned, even momentarily, the dream of
the Muslim Brotherhood (what the West calls "political Islam") ruling
the world. Imagine if we had stopped our stupid, useless acts of hatred,
and could instead have focused on our common enemy, Iran. Our situation
now would be immeasurably better. We would not be deviating from the
teachings of Muhammad, because first we have to focus on the near enemy
and then on the distant one. Iran is nearer and more dangerous than
Europe and the United States, so Iran should have been -- and still
should be -- the first Sunni target. We might have led Obama to adopt a
different approach than allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb in ten
years or sooner -- but we did not, because of our weakness and
distraction with marginal "causes." Thus Obama, from a desire to
stabilize the Middle East, seems to be betting on the strong horse,
Iran.
The truth, however, may be somewhat different. It is entirely
possible that Obama, who won the Nobel Peace Prize, is employing a
policy of "divide and conquer." In the U.S., instead of trying to
improve how children in the inner cities are being educated, he has been
busy stoking racial and economic conflict. The Arabs are becoming
increasingly suspicious that he is a historic "divide and conquer"
manipulator. He may deliberately be creating fitna (civil strife)
in the Arab world by whipping up conflict with Iran, so that America
will one again look like the big power-broker -- but at the expense of
the Arabs.
We Arabs are expert conspiracy theorists, and interpret every
political agenda as a hidden plot, but one only has to look at the Obama
administration's fawning support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey
and Egypt, and how America supported the fall of Mubarak, and it
immediately becomes obvious that the U.S. is trying to manipulate the
fate of the Arabs.
Anyone following America's rejection of, and now only reluctant
support for, the reformist regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah
el-Sisi understands that the Americans prefer what they consider
"backward Arabs": those controlled by regressive Islam.
That is the reason we see Obama's policies as backing both the Sunni
Muslim Brotherhood and the theocrats in Iran. The ideologies of both the
Muslim Brotherhood and Iran's mullahs would lead to most dangerous and
regressive fate of both Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the world, as
well as Americans at home -- and these are the Muslims most loved by the
current American administration. Or maybe, as many of us say here on
the street, Obama is just trying to "get even" with the West and bring
it to its knees, for being white, "imperialist" and non-Muslim. Obama's
solution? To let Iran have legitimate nuclear bombs in a few years, with
the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them to the U.S. --
or perhaps from America's soft underbelly, South America, where Iran has
been acquiring uranium and establishing bases for years. Or perhaps
launched from submarines off America's coast, which would make the
identity of the attacker unknowable and a response therefore impossible.
Incredibly, America's politicians do not even seem to seem to be
concerned about that.
Obama really does deserve a Nobel Prize, but it should have been
awarded by the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in
gratitude for America's surrender.
Perhaps
President Obama's Nobel Prize should have been awarded by the Ayatollah
Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, in gratitude for America's
surrender.
Bassam Tawil is a scholar based in the Middle East
"[Gulf leaders were not expected to] sign on the bottom line [approving the security cooperation framework on counterterrorism] but did agree] that a comprehensive, verifiable solution that fully addresses the regional and international concerns about Iran's nuclear program is in the security interests of the international community, including our Gulf Cooperation Council partners." "The U.S. would join the Gulf Cooperation Council nations] to deter and confront any external threat to any GCC state's territorial integrity." U.S. President Barack Obama, Camp David, MD
"[Arab leaders were] assured that the objective is to deny Iran the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon; [that all pathways to such a weapon would be closed]." "We don't know if the Iranians will accept the terms they need to accept." Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir
President Barack Obama, center, with Kuwaiti Emir Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad
Al-Sabah, left, and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, right,
as he makes a statement to members of the media after meeting with Gulf
Cooperation Council leaders and delegations at Camp David in Maryland,
Thursday, May 14, 2015. (AP
Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia has stated its unequivocal decision to match the Islamic Republic of Iran weapon-for-nuclear-weapon, if a break-out does occur. Effectively then, the U.S. administration's negotiations with Iran, should they fail, and realistically over a ten-year period that will be inevitable in any event at the very latest; this failed initiative will have led to an arms race for atomic weapons in the most volatile, dysfunctional, tribal, sectarian geography on Earth.
Ten years from now, at the very latest, President Obama's legacy will be viewed with amazed revulsion, in any event. The kind of revulsion, in fact, that mandated that though the Gulf States attended the invitation-only gathering taking place at Camp David, for the most part relatively lower-level state representatives took part in the proceedings; it was Saudi Arabia's deliberate snub to a former mentor-ally that had abandoned the friendship.
President Obama is a patient man of great forbearance, and forgiving in his nature, understanding the frailty of human nature, his own included, obviously. He has pledged America's "ironclad commitment" to soothe the nervous tension afflicting Persian Gulf nations in the shadow of the Islamic Republic of Iran's obvious intentions with respect to its nuclear file, which it declares no power on Earth capable of diminishing its right to achievement.
America has now pledged itself to complete support and increase of its security cooperation with the Gulf on counterterrorism, maritime security, cybersecurity and ballistic missile defence. A pledge that runs completely counter to its actions and activities relating to its negotiations with Iran, a terrorist-sponsoring country threatening to annihilate another Middle East nation, and actively conspiring complete Shiite command of Sunni-majority Middle East. "Let me underscore", President Obama stated with placatory emphasis that reality has negated under this administration, "the United States keeps our commitments". His aim clearly to convince the Gulf States they need have no fear that should Iran gain the international sanctions relief it seeks, the country would embark, newly flush with cash, on an expanded agenda of regional aggression.
Even with its financially straitened circumstances, under pressure of ongoing sanctions yet to be relaxed, Iran has negotiated to have its proxy Houthi Shiite militias gain control of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, driving out the Saudi-(and U.S.-) backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi. As far as Riyadh is concerned, Iran and its proxies were coming dangerously close to Saudi territory.
"For over a decade, Saudi
Arabia stayed silent as Iran interfered in Arab affairs. Iran’s presence in Yemen was the red line", said a Saudi palace insider. Just a day earlier an Iranian naval patrol boat fired on a commercial ship flagged in Singapore in the Persian Gulf. While an American official countered that it resulted over a financial dispute involving an Iranian oil platform that had sustained damage, this did not satisfy those present at the conference.
It represented "exactly the type of challenge" the Gulf nations focus on, admitted Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser. "The Iranians should not be allowed to get away with it", remarked Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, in his turn. Two heads of state; the emirs of Qatar and Kuwait turned up at Camp David, while Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain dispatched influential, but lower-level representatives.
Instead of congratulating the
Israeli people for being one of the few countries in the Middle East to
hold real free and democratic elections, Obama has decided to inflict
collective punishment not on Netanyahu, but on all Israelis, even its
Muslim and Christian citizens, for having an election that came out not
the way he wanted it to.
The terrorists have also been following with great enthusiasm reports
that the Obama Administration is considering reassessing its policy --
that the U.S. no longer considers Israel a strategic ally in the Middle
East.
In short, Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift the Americans could have given to Muslim terrorists and radical Arabs.
Obama also seems not to want to face the fact that because of his
withdrawals and neglect, the situation in the Middle East today, with
the rise of Islamic State and other terror groups, is not the same as it
was even five years ago.
Thanks to Obama's policies, the Iranians and their friends are now in
control of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and much of Bahrain, and
have surrounded the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile the U.S.
has been forced to close down its embassies in three Arab countries --
Syria, Libya and Yemen.
Even Palestinians and Arabs are aware of the fact that under the
current circumstances a Palestinian state would sooner or later be
controlled by jihadists and Islamic terrorists, whose dream is the
destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S.
The last thing the Americans and Europeans need is another Islamic
extremist country that exports terrorism -- with nuclear weapons -- to
all parts of the earth.
The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real enemy is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Islamic State.
Many Arabs and Muslims are rubbing their hands in joy as they watch
U.S. President Barack Obama declare war on Israel after the victory of
Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party in last week's general election.
They do not see the rising tensions between Obama and Netanyahu as
the result of a personal dispute between two leaders. Instead, the
dispute is seen by many Arabs and Muslims as part of the Obama
Administration's strategy to undermine Israel and force it to make
territorial concessions that would pose an existential threat to Israel.
At the beginning of his first term in office, he raised high hopes in
the Arab and Islamic countries when he rushed to deliver an apologetic
speech at the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Al-Azhar University in
Cairo. His speech left many Arabs and Muslims with the impression that
here, finally, is an American president who is prepared to sacrifice
Israel for the sake of appeasing its enemies.
Muslims have long considered Obama to be on their side in the
conflict with Israel. They were expecting him to become the first U.S.
president to abandon Israel in favor of Arabs and Muslims. But since the
2009 speech in Cairo, there has been great disappointment with Obama in
the Arab and Islamic countries for failing to "do something" about
Israel.
Now, at long last, the Obama Administration's increased hostility
toward Israel is being welcomed in many Arab and Islamic capitals. They
are overjoyed to see that after failing the Arabs and Muslims for the
past six years, Obama seems finally to be moving in the "right"
direction.
Terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah, Al-Qaeda and Islamic Jihad
are also expressing satisfaction with what they see as Obama's
"declaration of war" against Israel. Palestinian Authority officials in
the West Bank are also celebrating over the fact that Israel has become
the number one enemy of the Obama Administration.
This week, a Palestinian Authority official was quoted as saying that
the Palestinians would not be surprised if President Obama himself
joined their campaign to file war crimes charges against Israel before
the International Criminal Court. The official was reported to have told
a Ramallah-based Western diplomat that Obama hates Israel and this was
good news for the Palestinians.
Israel's enemies have been sitting on its borders and waiting for an
opportunity to attack. One of the reasons they have been reluctant until
now to wage an all-out war to destroy Israel was their fear that the
U.S. would come to Israel's rescue. But now, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic
Jihad, Islamic State and other terror groups are hopeful that Obama has
finally decided to abandon Israel.
The terrorists also have been following with great enthusiasm reports
that the Obama Administration is considering reassessing its policy in
the Middle East in the wake of Netanyahu's electoral victory. This is
exactly the kind of news they have been waiting to hear for so many
years -- that the U.S. no longer considers Israel its main strategic
ally in the Middle East.
Bassam
Tawil writes that President Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift
the Americans could have given to Islamist terrorists. Above, Israeli
PM Netanyahu meets President Obama at the White House, May 20, 2011.
(Image source: Israel PM office)
Reports that the Obama Administration will no longer support Israel
in international forums and agencies, especially in the UN General
Assembly and Security Council, are seen by a growing number of Arabs and
Muslims as the beginning of the end of the partnership between the U.S.
and Israel. This partnership has worried Israel's enemies for decades
because it stands in the way of achieving their goal of wiping Israel
off the face of the earth.
In short, Obama's anti-Israel stance is the best gift the Americans
could have given to Islamist terrorists and radical Arabs. For the first
time ever, the Obama Administration has created hope among Israel's
enemies that the U.S. will at last give them his wholehearted support,
just as he has been doing with Iran.
The sharp crisis between the Obama Administration and Israel has been
taking place at a time when the U.S. is losing most of its Arab and
Muslim friends, especially in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, as well as other
countries. It is also taking place at a time when Iran is capturing one
Arab country after the other, and has now surrounded all the oilfields
in the Persian Gulf, as well as having quietly for years infiltrated
South America.
Thanks to Obama's policies, the Iranians and their friends are now in
control of Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, and much of Bahrain, and
have surrounded the oilfields of the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile, the U.S.
has been forced to close down its embassies in three Arab countries --
Syria, Libya and Yemen.
Instead of facing the dangers of the Iranian drive to export the
Islamic revolution to as many Arab and Islamic countries as possible --
with the help of an accelerating operation to acquire nuclear weapons --
Obama has turned Israel in general, and Netanyahu in particular, into
the main threat to world peace and stability.
And instead of congratulating the Israeli people for being one of the
few countries in the Middle East to hold real free and democratic
elections, Obama has decided to inflict collective punishment not on
Netanyahu, but on all Israelis, even its Muslim and Christian citizens,
for having an election that came out not the way he wanted it to.
What Obama does seem to want is to force Israel to accept a
Palestinian state that would pose an existential threat to it and become
the source of instability and tensions in the region. Obama also seems
not to want to face the fact that because of his withdrawals and
neglect, the situation in the Middle East today, with the rise of
Islamic State and other terror groups, is not the same as it was even
five years ago.
Even Palestinians and Arabs are aware of the fact that under the
current circumstances a Palestinian state would sooner or later be
controlled by jihadists and Islamic terrorists, whose dream is the
destruction of Israel, Europe and the U.S.
If Obama is interested in reconsidering his Middle East policy, he
should start by examining the repercussions of the establishment of an
independent Palestinian state on regional and international security.
The last thing Americans and Europeans need is another Islamic extremist
country that exports terrorism -- most probably with nuclear weapons --
to all parts of the earth.
Obama needs to wake up. The real enemy is not Netanyahu. The real
enemy is Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Islamic State.
Unfortunately, Obama -- as he continues undermining moderate Muslims and
Arabs in the free world -- has decided to side with the wrong side.
Many Arabs and Muslims see the
meeting between Obama and Qatar's al-Thani as a gift to Qatar for its
continued support of Islamic radical groups across the Middle East,
including Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
On the eve of Obama's meeting, Egyptian sources revealed that Qatar
was providing weapons and ammunition to members of the Islamic State in
Libya. The sources said that 35 Qatari aircraft were involved in
transferring munitions.
Arab political analysts are also concerned about Obama's ongoing
attempts to appease Iran, which continues to expand its presence in Arab
countries such as Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon -- as well as in Syria, where
it is deeply involved in backing Hezbollah and operating along the
border with Israel. A Reuters report revealed that Iran also has
hundreds of advisors in Iraq.
Qatar is also one of the biggest funders of Hamas, whose leader,
Khaled Mashaal, is based in Qatar's capital, Doha. During the past few
years, Qatar has provided Hamas with hundreds of millions of dollars --
money used to purchase and develop weapons to attack Israel.
By the time Obama leaves the White House, Iran will most likely be in
control of more Arab countries, and Qatari-backed terror groups will be
much stronger.
The Egyptians are furious with U.S. President Barack Obama for
meeting in the White House this week with the emir of Qatar, Sheikh
Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. They say that the Obama Administration has
once again turned its back on moderate Arabs and Muslims by endorsing
those who support and fund Islamic terror groups.
The meeting between Obama and the emir of Qatar came shortly after Egypt accused the emirate of supporting terrorism.
Obama was quoted
as saying that "Qatar is a strong partner in our coalition to degrade
and ultimately defeat ISIL. We are both committed to making sure that
ISIL [ISIS/Islamic State] is defeated, to making sure that in Iraq there
is an opportunity for all people to live together in peace."
Obama's decision to host the emir of Qatar and his ensuing statements
in praise of the emirate's role in "combating" the Islamic State have
drawn sharp criticism from the Egyptians and other Arabs and Muslims.
U.S.
President Barack Obama shares some laughs with Qatar's Sheikh Tamim bin
Hamad al-Thani at the White House, February 24, 2015. (Image source:
C-SPAN video screenshot)
Many Arabs and Muslims see the meeting between Obama and al-Thani as a
gift to Qatar for its continued support of Islamic radical groups in
different parts of the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Egypt,
Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
The meeting came less than a week after the Egyptian envoy to the Arab League, Tareq Adel, accused Qatar of supporting terrorism. In response, Qatar recalled its ambassador to Cairo for "consultations."
The latest crisis between Cairo and Doha erupted after Qatar
expressed reservations about Egypt's airstrikes against Islamic State
targets in Libya in retaliation for the beheading of 21 Egyptian Coptic
Christians.
On the eve of Obama's meeting with the emir, Egyptian sources
revealed that Qatar was providing weapons and ammunition to members of
the Islamic State in Libya. The sources said that 35 Qatari aircraft were involved in transferring weapons and ammunition to the terror group.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and his regime consider Qatar
to be one of the main supporters and funders of Islamic terror groups.
They believe that without Qatar's support and money, Islamic terror
groups would not have been able to launch numerous attacks on Egyptian
soldiers in Sinai, and Hamas would not be in control of the Gaza Strip.
But President Sisi and his regime are equally furious with Obama for his public embracing of the Qatari emir.
Sisi is expected to travel to Saudi Arabia next week to hold urgent
talks with King Salman bin Abdel Aziz on the crisis between Egypt and
Qatar. According to reports in the Egyptian media, Sisi is also expected
to complain to the Saudi monarch about Obama's support for Qatar at a
time when Egypt and other Arab countries are engaged in fighting
Qatari-backed terror groups.
The Egyptian president is hoping that the Saudis will use their
influence to convince Obama to stop supporting a country that openly
backs terror groups.
The government-controlled media in Egypt is now full of articles and
cartoons strongly denouncing Obama's policy toward Qatar. Such attacks
on Obama could not have surfaced in the media had they not been approved
by Sisi and his top aides in Cairo.
One cartoon, for
example, features Obama standing next to the emir of Qatar at a press
conference and declaring, "We have recalled our emir from Qatar for
consultations." This cartoon is intended to send a message that Obama
and the Qatari emir, a major supporter of Islamic terrorism, are
buddies.
The Egyptian condemnations of Qatar are also directed at the Obama
Administration, which seems to be losing one Arab ally after the other
because of its perceived support for Qatar and its proxy, the Muslim
Brotherhood.
Writing in the Al-Makal newspaper, columnist Ahmed al-Faqih launched a scathing attack on Qatar and the US in an article that carried the title "The Qatari dwarf that feeds the ISIS monster."
Al-Faqih claims that Qatar is nothing but a pawn in the hands of the
US and the Israeli Mossad, and that Qatar uses its resources to support
terrorism.
Another columnist, Ahmed Musa, wrote that Qatar, "which is allied
with Israel and the US," was being used to fight Arab countries such as
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya and Syria.
"Qatar us conspiring against Egypt to serve the interests of terror groups and organizations," Musa said,
noting the close ties between the Qataris and the US Administration.
"The Qatari regime has aligned itself with the murderers of the Muslim
Brotherhood and the terrorists of Islamic State and Al-Qaeda, and is
paying them billions of dollars."
Arab political analysts are not only concerned about Obama's close
relations with Qatar, but also his ongoing attempts to appease Iran.
They argue that what is needed now is a serious US policy to counter
terrorism, as well as a new and harsh approach toward Iran.
As Obama was welcoming al-Thani, Qatar continued to face charges of supporting Islamist groups. The Egyptians say Qatar provides "financial, logistical and media support for terrorist leaders."
Qatar is also one of the biggest funders of Hamas,
whose leader, Khaled Mashaal, is based in Qatar's capital, Doha. During
the past few years, Qatar has provided Hamas with hundreds of millions
of dollars -- money used to purchase and develop weapons to attack
Israel.
Meanwhile, Iran continues to expand its presence in Arab countries such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.
In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi militias have contributed to the collapse of the government there, Secretary of State John Kerry said this week.
In Syria, Iran is deeply involved in backing the regime of Bashar
Assad and Hezbollah in their fight against opposition forces. Iranian
generals and military experts are also operating in the Golan Heights along the border with Israel.
In Iraq, hundreds of military advisors from Iran are operating, according to a Reuters report.
The report quoted Iraqi officials as saying that Tehran's involvement
is driven by its belief that Islamic State is an immediate danger to
Shi'ite religious shrines. The Iranians have helped organize Shi'ite
volunteers and militia forces to defend Iraq against Islamic State
terrorists.
As for Lebanon, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah continues
to maintain a powerful security and political presence there.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has helped Iraq, Syria, Palestine and
Hezbollah by exporting the technology that it has for the production of
missiles and other equipment," Revolutionary Guard Air Force commander Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh was quoted recently.
By the time Obama's term in office ends, Iran will most likely be in
control of more Arab countries, and Qatari-backed terror groups will be
much stronger, killing more Muslims and non-Muslims.
"[President Bashar Asad's] war against his own people and deliberate stoking of sectarian tensions helped to fuel the rise of (Islamic State). And in Iraq, with the failure of the previous government to govern in an inclusive manner, it helped to pave the way for (Islamic State's) gains there." "[Muslim clerics and scholars] have a responsibility to push back, not just on twisted interpretations of Islam, but also on the lie that we are somehow engaged in a clash of civilizations; that America and the West are somehow at war with Islam or seek to suppress Muslims; or that we are the cause of every ill in the Middle East." "Obviously, there is a complicated history between the Middle East, the West. And none of us, I think, should be immune from criticism in terms of specific policies, but the notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie. And all of us, regardless of our faith, have a responsibility to reject it." "This requires ... wealthier countries to do more. But it also requires countries that are emerging and developing to create structures of governance and transparency so that any assistance provided actually works and reaches people. It's a two way street." "When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied -- particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines -- when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism. It creates an environment that is ripe for terrorists to exploit." U.S. President Barack Obama
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty ImagesU.S.
President Barack Obama speaks during the White House Summit on
Countering Violent Extremism as Syrian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi
listens on Feb. 19, 2015 in Washington, DC
Another daily lecture from the master explainer. Well, he is correct with one observation, to label as a lie the contention in some Muslim quarters that the West is at war with Islam, when in actual fact it would be more accurate to claim that Islam is at war with the West. It is pure Islamic and fundamental to Islam that as it represents the finished version of monotheism it has an obligation to the Almighty to ensure that all other religions fall and their faithful surrender to the one true faith.
Jihad, so vital to Islam as part of the struggle to see that Islam conquers all opposition to its global conquest for the hearts, minds and lives of humankind in a universal caliphate, is entitled to use all means to convert those who stubbornly resist the call to surrender. It is such a simple matter, after all, to convert to Islam; a quietly final declaration of submission in the declaration that "There is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger".
Poof! another conquest. But the stubborn must be led to their fate; against their will if required. Which is where terror enters the picture, alongside martyrdom and slaughter. The West has no institutions, no single or collective ideology or religion whose ultimate purpose is universal conquest, the leading of the eager as well as the recalcitrant to admission to a cult whose numbers are constantly growing. One of the most potent tools of prosetylization is immigration; infiltration by the masses, then entitlement to recognition of Sharia law.
The clerics to whom Mr. President appeals are often the very sources to ensure that jihad is never far from the minds of the faithful. The purity of purpose of Islamism and its rise to become the threat to the world order that we see today has been gradual, sustained and inexorable. Those Muslim governments that view it as a threat, attempt to sideline the movement, to no avail. Islamist jihad owes nothing to the West but resentment of it, fuelling its determination to surmount and conquer it.
The rise of al-Qaeda and of the Islamic State owes nothing to the West and to claims that they are the result of colonialist interference in the lands in which they have arisen. They arose out of a crucible of rejection of Western values and perceived moral corruption of the West, which, though representative of all that's wrong in the opinion of the Islamists, is ascendant, leading Islamists to the will to destroy democracy, incompatible with complete surrender to Islam.
In alluding to Syria and Iraq, Mr. President points out without meaning to, the starkly malevolent divisions within Islam born of a tribal, ethic sectarian antipathy to ethnic, tribal, clan and religious counterparts with their differences that become hostile, hateful and murderous. There is no counterpart elsewhere in the world today quite as influential and widespread and destructive in loss of lives and numbers of refugees fleeing conflict and oppression as that caused by Islamism.
Typically, Mr. President calls upon the visceral guilt that Westerners feel when speaking of the downtrodden, the misunderstood, the oppressed and the poor in opportunities and welfare, to urge those that have to surrender to the needs of those that have not. And while this is an excellent prescriptive in balanced, civilized societies, it doesn't work quite as well in societies whose values lean heavily on a culture reflective of Medieval society.
Mr. President stresses that the lack of democratic freedoms in countries suffering the burden of violent extremism must be addressed. By whom? It was addressed time and again by his predecessor, determined to bring the blessings of democracy to the Middle East and anywhere that totalitarian governments rule the roost. In toppling unrepentant and controlling dictators in Iraq and Libya, the door was opened to extreme fanatics whose tribal and sectarian hostilities toward others turned massively deadly.
Mr. President has prescribed fixes for his own nation, to attempt to equalize gaps between the wealthy and the poor, to provide social services and and social welfare in a fair and just manner to his own population, and all his prescriptives have realized rejection. Now he reaches further to impress upon the world at large its obligation to itself, when much of the world feels no obligation to itself let alone to others, other than to prevail in their pathologies of isolation, hatred and vengeance.
Everything President Obama has done and/or articulated in the last
weeks and days regarding national security and foreign policy;
releasing his National Security Strategy (NSS), asking congress to
authorize the use of force against the Islamic State (ISIS) and closing
the U.S. embassy in Yemen, all the while stressing in a series of
interviews and in a variety of ways his aversion to the use of military
force, reinforced in bold relief once again his core belief that America
is no longer capable of achieving great things in the world.
It
is true that Americans have rediscovered the limits of their military
power in the inhospitable mountains of Afghanistan and the harsh deserts
of central Iraq, but President Obama’s obsession with ending the two
wars even if conditions for peace and stability are not there yet, has
muddled his worldview, and deepened his proclivity to compromise and
seek accommodation, when assertiveness and decisiveness are needed. He
is determined not to allow 'foreign entanglements' to derail his
presidency the way Vietnam sapped Lindon Johnson’s presidency and
undermined his domestic agenda.
America in the mind of Obama is
light years away from the one John F. Kennedy had in mind when he said
‘Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’
Kennedy did not live long to see what the burden and hardship of Vietnam
did to America.
A prudent president should avoid the extremes of
Obama and Kennedy, and believe that the U.S. can still achieve great
things in the world. I always ask Arab and European friends who complain
bitterly (and in some cases correctly) about U.S. foreign policy
decisions and blunders, that if this world of competing states is going
to be dominated by one political culture, would they want that political
culture to be that of Russia (under Putin), China (under the Communist
party) or any other aspiring power like Iran, Brazil, or even the
European Union which failed in the 1990’s to stop the first mass
killings on European soil since the Holocaust, OR America warts and all?
Many of them usually struggle with the answer before agreeing
grudgingly.
Compassion but no passion
President Obama’s
soaring rhetoric and eloquently crafted pronouncements on foreign
affairs, whether his Cairo speech, his Nobel Prize address, or the West
Point speech never hidden the fact that he is a reluctant practitioner
of assertive American leadership in the world, or that his diplomatic
forays where mostly hesitant, tentative and half-hearted. He can
articulate compassion, but never with passion. Instead of making caution
in foreign policy a virtue, he turned it into a vice.
A prudent president should avoid the extremes of Obama and
Kennedy, and believe that the U.S. can still achieve great things in the
world
Hisham Melhem
The erudite president, who has a gift for words, may have believed
that his diction can substitute for action. He came to the White House
with lofty ideas and hopes; ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,
finally achieving peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, a
historic opening to Iran, similar to Richard Nixon’s opening to China,
the ‘reset’ policy towards Russia, a new beginning with the Muslim
world. But, when his hopes hit reality and he realized that such
entanglements require sustained, tough and cunning leadership he
flinched. Here’s Obama in his recent Vox interview, ‘I came in with some
very clear theories about what my goals were going to be…And then the
Arab Spring happened. I don’t recall all the wise men in Washington
anticipating this. And so it has been this huge, tumultuous change and
shift, and so we’ve had to adopt, even as it’s happening in real time,
to some huge changes in these societies.’
"Gimme Shelter"
The
National Security Strategy was high on aspirations and low on specific
future expectations. In fact it was a document that celebrated the
policies of the past six years and for those looking for a strategic
framework for the future they were given the palliative of ‘strategic
patience’. The document is expansive about the effectiveness of U.S.
leadership role in the world, a claim belied by the failure to deter
Russian aggression in the Ukraine, or in seriously containing ISIS let
alone destroying it, or in preventing the disintegration of countries
like Yemen and Libya. In the President’s accompanying letter, he warns
against over-reaching, and that ‘we must recognize that a smart national
security strategy does not rely solely on military power.’
After
six months of waging a limited air war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria,
President Obama asked congress to authorize a three year military
campaign that does not include ‘the use of the United States Armed
Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations’ like those the
U.S. conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Authorization for the
Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Obama asked for ‘would provide the
flexibility to conduct ground combat operations…such as rescue
operations…or the use of special operations forces to take military
action against ISIS leadership.’ President Obama is the first president
who asks congress to put limits of time and scope on his ability as the
Commander-in-Chief to wage war.
And although Obama stressed that
the U.S. ‘should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war
in the Middle East.’ Many weary Democrats in congress are concerned that
the ambiguous language about ‘enduring offensive ground combat
operations’ could be stretched to mean long wars. Some powerful
Republicans on the other hand are criticizing the White House proposed
(AUMF) as too restrictive. These Republicans also, are criticizing Obama
because his request does not mention Syria’s president Assad, and
certainly does not target his forces. The expected battle over the
(AUMF) will likely last for months, and while it is clear that the
President does not really need it to continue the military campaign, it
is believed that Obama, the ever cautious president wants the Republican
congress to shelter him from potential criticism, by providing him a
political cover for a military campaign that does not look like it is
serious in delivering its core declared objective of destroying ISIS.
Withdrawal symptoms
The
American diplomatic withdrawal from Yemen is emblematic of America’s
estrangement from the Middle East and its slow and gradual retreat from
the region. In one year the U.S. was forced to close its embassies in
Libya and Yemen, two brittle states threatened with disintegration. The
Obama Administration finds itself now at odds with some of its old and
traditional allies and friends including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and
Israel. The reasons for this state of alienation range from how to deal
with Syria, the war with ISIS, political Islam and Iran’s nuclear
program and its role in neighboring countries.
From the beginning
of the conflict in Syria, even in its early peaceful stage, President
Obama was very reluctant to get involved in it. By that time it seemed
as if the President who wanted to engage the Arab and Muslim worlds in
2009, has suspended his intellectual curiosity about the region. His
reactions to the Arab uprisings were episodic, reluctant and
contradictory. When the Assad regime’s repression plunged the country
into greater violence, President Obama declared the conflict as ‘someone
else’s civil war’. Obama never intended to own or act upon his
pronouncements that Assad should step down, or that he will change his
calculus if Assad used Chemical Weapons. His decision to renege on his
commitment to punish the Assad regime in the summer of 2013 when it was
established that Syrian government forces used Chemical Weapons against
civilians, is still reverberating negatively in Syria. The initial
limited program organized by the Central Intelligence Agency to train
‘moderate’ Syrian rebels was not meant to create a credible force to
challenge the Syrian regime.
The emergence of ISIS, particularly
after it succeeded in obliterating the Syrian-Iraqi borders and
following its occupation of Mosul set in motion dizzying political and
military dynamics and shifting alliances that very few could have
predicted when the Syrian uprising began in early 2011.
The pretend Caliph and the Ayatollah
Today
the United States and Iran (with its numerous Shiite proxies) are de
facto allies in the war against ISIS and other radical Sunni groups in
Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The control of the Houthi (Zaydi/Shiite)
rebellion of the Yemeni capital Sana’a, could lead to tacit cooperation
with the Houthis, supported by Iran, against Al Qaeda in Yemen,
considered by the U.S. as the most dangerous branch of Al Qaeda. The
Obama Administration sees the prosecution of this war, and the potential
for a nuclear agreement with Tehran requires illicit collaboration with
Iran. It is not an exaggeration to say that the U.S. has acquiesced to
Iran’s emergence as the regional power with the most influence in four
Arab capitals; Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and the recent prize, Sana’a.
The
emergence of the pretend Caliph in Mosul has accelerated the implicit
cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in order to shore up various Iraqi
forces, from the battered government in Baghdad to the Kurds in the
north. This collaboration has alienated the Syrian moderate forces as
well as those Sunni states that have been providing them with material
and financial support. The United States has stopped calling for Assad’s
departure, and privately U.S. officials say that there can be no
political solution without Assad. Even the objectives of the proposed
‘train and equip’ for the moderate Syrian opposition that the U.S. has
announce have been amended to reflect Washington’s priorities. The
program will focus ‘narrowly’ on assisting the opposition to combat
ISIS. There is total U.S. denial now that it was the brutal Assad regime
that has brought the brutes of ISIS to Syria. It is intriguing that the
Obama Administration keeps raising questions and doubts about vetting
the backgrounds of moderate Syrian opposition members, while at the same
time U.S. weapons are being used by Iraqi Shiite groups including the
Badr brigade, whose members had American blood on their hands. There is
no vetting of America’s allies in Iraq.
Unite
American officials
involved in the fighting in Iraq and Syria, both military and civilians
confirm that Iran is the main reason why Assad’s forces have been immune
to attacks by U.S. forces. The U.S. is concerned that if American
bombers attack the Syrian army, Iran will retaliate against the U.S. in
Iraq. Also U.S. officials admit that the desire of the White House not
to drive Iran out of the negotiations is another reason Washington does
not want its actions in Syria to lead Iran to bid the nuclear
negotiations adieu. Senior U.S. officers have said that the reason U.S
bombers are not hitting ISIS installations located close to other Syrian
opposition groups, so that these groups can benefit and control these
locations, is that some of these non-Islamists would turn their guns
against Assad.
After 11 years of American and Iraqi blood, sweat
and tears, unspeakable sacrifices, pain and sorrows, Iraq has an
entrenched sectarian political system that is barely functioning, with
America’s influence diminishing and Iran influence is on the ascendance.
These are indeed strange days in the Middle East.
_____________ Hisham Melhem is the bureau chief of Al Arabiya News Channel in
Washington, DC. Melhem has interviewed many American and international
public figures, including Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush,
Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral
Mike Mullen, among others. Melhem speaks regularly at college campuses,
think tanks and interest groups on U.S.-Arab relations, political Islam,
intra-Arab relations, Arab-Israeli issues, media in the Arab World,
Arab images in American media , U.S. public policies and other related
topics. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese
daily. For four years he hosted "Across the Ocean," a weekly current
affairs program on U.S.-Arab relations for Al Arabiya.
Nearly all the 54 Republican U.S. senators will vote in favor of the
Kirk-Menendez bill requiring sanctions on Iran if the P5+1 negotiations
fail. President Obama has promised to veto it. Now, the senate is
gearing up for a high-drama vote; will Democrats provide the 13 to 15
votes needed for a veto-proof majority?
Lost in the shuffle is a little-noticed section of the bill that, if passed, guts it. The "Draft of Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2015,"
posted on the website of Sen. Mark Kirk (Republican of Illinois)
contains a "Waiver of Sanctions." Designed to win the support of
skittish Democrats, it also undermines the bill's goal of forcing
Obama's hand in the negotiations. Section 208 bears quotation in full:
The President may waive
the application of any sanction pursuant to a provision of or amendment
made by this title for a 30-day period, and may renew the waiver for
additional 30-day periods, if the President, before the waiver or
renewal, as the case may be – (1) certifies to the appropriate
congressional committees that – (A) the waiver or renewal, as the case
may be, is in the national security interest of the United States; (B)
the waiver or renewal, as the case may be, is necessary to and likely to
result in achieving a long-term comprehensive solution with Iran; and
(C) Iran is not making further progress on its nuclear weapons program
and is in compliance with all interim agreements with respect to that
program; and (2) submits to the appropriate
congressional committees a comprehensive report on the status of the
negotiations toward a long-term comprehensive solution that includes an
assessment of the likelihood of reaching that solution and the time
frame anticipated for achieving that solution.
What's the point, one might ask, of the pro-sanctions side struggling
so hard to attain a veto-proof majority when Obama can negate its
provisions at will?
Why does the White House expend so
much political capital stopping this bill when it could let it pass and
then kill it by invoking the waiver?
Indeed, Obama has already made statements along the very lines the bill requires, notably in his State of the Union
(SOTU) address in January, when he (falsely) claimed that "for the
first time in a decade, we've halted the progress of its nuclear program
and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material." On the other side, why
does the White House expend so much political capital stopping this bill
when it could let it pass and then kill it by invoking the waiver?
Why the major combat over what amounts to a symbolic resolution?
In part, it increasingly embarrasses Obama by making him unceasingly
justify the waver every 30 days. But also, as he glancingly explained in
the SOTU, he passionately wants Kirk-Menendez defeated because "new
sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but
guarantee that diplomacy fails … [by] ensuring that Iran starts up its
nuclear program again."
The Iranian Majlis sure looks like a real parliament.
In other words, the Iranian pseudo-parliament
(the Majlis) is warning that the bill's passage – even if its sanctions
are subsequently waived – in itself cancels the existing interim accord
and ends the negotiating process. Iran's foreign minister also declared
that the Majlis
would retaliate against any new U.S. sanctions legislation by ramping
up the nuclear program; and that new sanctions would damage the West's
favorite Iranian politician, President Hassan Rouhani.
With this clever tactic, the Iranians have provoked a grand test of
wills in Washington, turning Obama into their enforcer obliged to tame
Congress; Majlis speaker Ali Larijani has warned that "If Obama can't
solve his problems [with Congress], he himself will be responsible for
the disruption of the negotiations." Rather than tell Tehran to take a
hike, the administration (in keeping with its larger strategy) fell for this ruse, resulting in a forthcoming Senate battle royal.
Of course, cajoling Tehran to the negotiating table ignores how the much Iranians benefited from the last accord, signed in November 2013,
and how they expect to do as well in the next one. It also ignores
that, to provide diplomatic cover as their approximately 10,000
centrifuges busily whirl away, they seek ad nauseam negotiations.
Is this not reminiscent of the bazaar, where the wily merchant
charmingly cheats the naïve tourist? The stake, however, is not the
price of a Persian carpet but an apocalyptic rogue regime acquiring and perhaps deploying nuclear weapons.
And so, the toothless Kirk-Menendez bill actually does have real importance. It needs those 67 votes.
Daniel Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum.
The Crusades -- gruesome as they
were -- were not some early outbreak of "Islamophobia." They were an
effort, by Christian nations in Europe, to defend Christians in the
Middle East who were being slaughtered by Muslim tribes, and
specifically to take back the city of Jerusalem from the Muslim armies
who had invaded it.
It is a very strange interpretation of history to put the blame for
slavery on Christians, but to ignore William Wilberforce, Abraham
Lincoln and other Christians who led the world in fighting to abolish
it. Slavery is still practiced by Muslims in Mauritania and, as recently
seen, by Boko Haram.
Barack Obama is the President of the United States, but to judge from
his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast last Thursday morning, one
might get the impression that he thinks himself far more than that.
He and his speechwriters presumably realised with the news in
America, as in the rest of the world, dominated day in and day out with
atrocious news stories from Muslim communities in the Middle East, the
President would probably have to make a reference to Islamic violence.
President Obama described ISIS as "a brutal, vicious death cult that,
in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism."
That "religion." rather than "Islam," was a notable nicety. Elsewhere,
when he got into specifics, he indulged in a line of
spread-the-blame-around-a-bit. He went on to say:
"We see sectarian war in Syria, the murder of Muslims and
Christians in Nigeria, religious war in the Central African Republic, a
rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Europe, so often
perpetrated in the name of religion."
President
Barack Obama, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5,
2015. (Image source: White House video screenshot)
The Nigeria point is a neat one, suggesting that the religious
conflict there is very much a "six of one and half a dozen of the other"
problem, rather than a problem of Muslims slaughtering Christians. And
who is to cast blame if both sides are doing it? But the point on rising
anti-Semitism in Europe is avoidance and avoidance-blaming at its very
best. They are not, it is important to state, just "often perpetrated in
the name of religion." Because although people may be shocked to hear
it, Europe is not going through a "rising tide of anti-Semitism and hate
crime" because we have all become a bit too Christian, Jewish or
secular in recent years . It has happened because post-war immigration
into Europe has brought very large Muslim communities amongst whom
anti-Semitism is, in the words of British Muslim journalist Mehdi Hasan,
"routine and commonplace... our dirty little secret." It is from these
communities that the upsurge in anti-Semitic hate-crimes -- which were
at an all-time high in the UK last year -- has come.
As eminent historians are so famous for doing, President Obama also
chose to lecture on religious history, and do so as glibly and
inaccurately as possible. As many another aspirant historian does,
President Obama went in by way of the Crusades. He hadn't actually
singled out Islamic extremism as a particular problem at the moment --
because he will not even name it -- but he did decide to say that
everybody else could be just as guilty as the religion that must not be
named:
"Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique
to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the
Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In
our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in
the name of Christ."
Since it was President Obama who brought these up, you might have
thought he would have had the information to know a little about the
background. In particular that the Crusades -- gruesome as they were --
were not some early outbreak of "Islamophobia." They were an effort, by
Christian nations in Europe, to defend Christians in the Middle East who
were being slaughtered by Muslim tribes, and specifically to take back
the city of Jerusalem from the Muslim armies who had conquered it. The
question of whom Jerusalem ought to have belonged to is a long and
interesting one, but unless you think that Muslim armies should have
been allowed to conquer Jerusalem and wipe out Christians across the
Middle East a millennium ago, it is hard to see why the Crusades should
be regarded as a particular sin of Christians. And Christian Americans
in particular might rightly wonder what guilt they are meant to feel for
a religious war that took place centuries before America as a country
even existed.
As for slavery, do we really need to keep going around this one?
Because while it is true that you can find religious people who endorsed
slavery -- in the Bible and elsewhere -- any historian would find it
hard to deny that the movement to abolish slavery was also led by
Christians. Slavery is still practiced
by Muslims in Mauritania and, as recently seen, by Boko Haram. It is a
very strange interpretation of history that is willing to put the blame
for slavery (a worldwide practice at most times in history) on
Christians, but to ignore William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln (a
Republican) and other Christians who led the world in fighting to
abolish it.
Only someone ignorant would claim that Islam is the only religion in
whose name bad things have been done. But only a historian with an
agenda would try to kick over the actual complexities to invent his own
set of facts. In Britain, this effort to manipulate the facts in order
to come to a pre-ordained conclusion is known as the "Whig
interpretation of history." Perhaps Americans might rename it the "Obama
interpretation of history."
But in all of that -- these roles that show President Obama seems to
think the office of President of the United States may not be quite good
enough for him -- there was one further role that Obama also sought.
That was the role of moralizer-in-chief. Because it remains fairly
shocking to some of us that President Obama -- not least in a speech in
which he talked about the importance of upholding "the distinction
between our faiths and our government" -- should endeavor not only to
lead the American people, but to tell them how to think and what to
think.
Never mind that in his present-day analysis in the Prayer Breakfast
Speech, the President was unable even to name what it was he was trying
to analyse. And never mind that the historical references in the speech
were based on misreporting history. Most shocking is what the President
obviously intended his audience to take away and learn from the speech.
That lesson can be boiled down to: "Who are we to judge?" The answer, I
trust, is obvious to readers, even if it is not obvious to President
Obama. We are able to judge ISIS because there is every difference in
the world between the United States and ISIS. The American people should
of course be aware -- as everybody should be -- that nobody has a
monopoly on virtue, just as nobody has a monopoly on vice. But if you
look at the current global playing field, we do have the right to judge
ISIS because we are not like them.
What President Obama gave last week was not just a wrong analysis of
the past and present. It was a justification for the argument that
America does not have the legitimacy for doing anything meaningful
against the great evil of our time, because we have "all been evil." It
is probably not ahistorical to point out that the great men who have
inhabited the President's job would, to a man, have been ashamed of him.
This represents a general opinion site for its author. It also offers a space for the author to record her experiences and perceptions,both personal and public. This is rendered obvious by the content contained in the blog, but the space is here inviting me to write. And so I do.
