By Michael Ledeen On August 29, 2014 @ 10:05 am PJ MEDIA
They DO have a strategy, but they prefer to appear indecisive. That’s because the strategy would likely provoke even greater criticism than the false confession of endless dithering.
The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller [1], who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.
Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels: Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.
The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares.
If we look at the current crisis through an Iranian lens, our apparent indecisiveness is easier to understand, for it systematically favors Iran’s interests. Tehran’s closest ally is Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. If Assad were to be overthrown by opposition forces hostile to Iran, it would be a devastating blow to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has committed tens of thousands of fighters (from Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij) to shore up the Damascus regime. Everything Iran does in the region revolves around the necessity of preserving Assad’s tyranny.
Obama surely understands this. It therefore made no sense to bomb Syria in the otherwise baffling about-face on the “red line” a year ago. In like manner, the refusal to take decisive action today against the Islamic State caters to Iranian and Syrian concerns. Remember that ISIS was supported by Iran and Syria as a weapon against anti-Assad and anti-Iranian forces (from the Kurds to the FSA), none of whom is receiving serious American support.
It is exceedingly unlikely that Mr. Obama will do anything that would threaten Assad’s rule or Iran’s power. To do so would be tantamount to abandoning his core strategy of creating a U.S.-Iranian alliance that would make Tehran the major regional power and Washington a friendly kibbitzer and adviser.
It is even more unlikely that Mr. Obama and his spokespeople will confess to actually having a strategy, because of the political firestorm that would result. Better to be thought a fool than to remove all doubt, after all.
@ ebyjeeby:
Narcissism is an aspect of psychopathy, but in a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the sufferer becomes depressed and angry upon being challenged. In a true psychopath, the reaction to such criticism is indifference.
“Petulant Child” is not a clinical diagnosis, so I do not know how to respond. However, part of being petulant is to try to manipulate others through the expression of negative emotions. Being able to blame others chronically as a tactic sooner or later brings contempt from those people on the receiving end, just what Obama is now eliciting from the thinking public. His “tin ear” to criticisms again is typical of psychopathy in which condition everyone else is merely a tool to be manipulated for the benefit of the psychopath. People with a conscience cannot repeatedly engage in manipulation without “slipping” and showing their discomfort with such ploys. Obama never slips even when he says self-contradictory things about a subject. We misunderstood him or took his remarks out of context.
Also, Mr. Obama lacks a real sense of humor. He has no grasp of the ironic. A sense of humor acknowledges paradox. Not Mr. Obama! There is no self-doubt. When challenged he fails to attend or address the challenge except with well practiced responses. When extended thinking is required, he retires to a televised basketball game.
The next time we elect a president, let’s make sure he came from an intact family. It’s not a guarantee, but it a reasonable first requirement.
jlevyellow hit it right on the head. Additionally, Obama is a narcissist and a petulant child.
I have to correct my above comment. The character I’m
referring to is Walt kelly’s Pogo. The quote reads:
“I have met the enemy and he is US”.
Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama supports the Shia messianics. The only point coincidental between these two groups is their hatred of Israel. That is a coherent policy only if you believe that Obama’s goal is to corner Israel on all its borders.
Since Obama knows that Israel will not go quietly into that good night, he is apparently seeking a nuclear confrontation in the Middle East between Iran and Israel. Such a debacle will bring about world intervention no matter the outcome of the conflict. It is this world intervention that most interests the Marxist Obama. Concerted world action against individual nation-states, Israel in particular, is his true goal. How he achieves this goal is irrelevant to him. Deaths of individuals are of no concern. He is a psychopath!
As that famous character Charlie Brown said:
“We have met the enemy and it is US”.