Barack Obama’s Middle East Policy

12 Comments / 12 Comments

1. @ bernard ross:

   What you say makes sense, but I don’t think it necessarily conflicts with what I say.

   Dick Cheney said in his memoirs that SecDef Gates had told the Saudis – without any authorization from anyone, so far as Cheney knew – that there was no way Bush was going to use force on Iran’s nuke program, that Bush would likely face impeachment if he did, much to the dismay and consternation of his Saudi hosts (I have long suspected Gates of being an Iranian mole).

   I have heard many, many anecdotal accounts of meetings between various and sundry Westerners, and Gulf Arabs, in places like D.C., in which the Gulf Arabs were all but wetting their pants over the prospect of a nuclear Iran, wondering when the U.S. or Israel were going to act.

   Then, we have the fact of Rahm Emanuel, early in Obama’s first term, stating openly that there was linkage between American help for Israel with respect to Iran on the one hand, and Israeli “flexibility” with the PA on the other. This caused a big uproar, so such open talk stopped after that, but the policy remained.

   Throughout Obama’s first term, and even up to today, we saw excuse after excuse for declining to take decisive action against Iran, coupled with stern warnings against Israel taking unilateral action. First, it was various scheduled “talks” with Iran, all of which failed, even after the Europeans admitted in 2010 that they considered such negotiations useless after trying themselves for seven years up to that point. Then, it was “the election” here in the U.S., that Israel shouldn’t do anything to make a big crisis before the election that would make Obama look bad, “or else”, and now today, we saw “let’s wait until the Iranian elections”, and now that they have occurred, we have, “Oh look! They elected a ‘moderate’! Maybe there is hope!”

   Meanwhile, the longer we wait, the more hardened Iranian defenses become, and the targets and sites that need to be hit continue to multiply.

   You mention looking at what is really happening, beyond the smoke and mirrors political/media b.s. OK, I think we’re on ths same page here where that is concerned. And I stand by what I said. On most issues – taking the side of the PA against Israel on most issues, putting up as many roadblocks as possible against U.S. domestic energy development (i.e., preserving Gulf Arab market share in the U.S.), supporting Islamist jihadists (as long as they are Sunnis, which ultimately means the roots of their support are Gulf Arabs) – Obama pretty much adheres to the Saudi (or GCC, if you prefer) playbook.

   But on Israel with respect to the Iran nuke issue, Obama thinks he is more “clever” than the GCC and can have it both ways. His priority is using Israeli existential fear of a nuclear Iran as the lever by which he will force them to accept a Saudi-style “peace plan”. Dealing with a nuclear Iran is second place, no matter what the GCC says. Sure, he’ll acquiesce in the cloak and dagger stuff, to shut up the Gulf Arabs if for no other reason, so they can’t accuse him of doing “nothing”, but the “prize” for him is an emasculated Israel living cheek by jowl with a PA state in J&S.

   Look at what he’s got Kerry doing: With all that is going on in the world, why is America’s chief diplomat spending practically ALL of his time on this idiotic pursuit of an Israeli/PA peace deal???

   Hopefully, the Israeli cloak and dagger stuff (e.g., Fordo in January, among others) has and will throw enough monkey wrenches into the Iran nuke program to keep them at bay long enough so that when crunch time comes, Obama is no longer a relevant factor/impediment and whatever Israel does at the moment of truth, will be a telling and decisive blow. If it is not already too late…

2. Convincing evidence suggests that Egypt’s President Mohammad Morsi was ousted from power in a military coup in part because the Egyptian army feared he was plotting to order them to invade Syria in support of the embattled death squad insurgency against the Assad government there.
   
   The combination of Morsi’s aggressive designs against Syria, together with some trial balloons from presidential circles about a possible conflict with Ethiopia, plus the massive anti-Morsi demonstrations organized by the National Salvation Front and the Tamarod movement, convinced military leaders that the incompetent and erratic Morsi, who had destroyed his own popularity by selling out to the demands of the International Monetary Fund last November, represented an intolerable risk for Egypt.

   According to the Washington Post, the dissatisfaction of the Egyptian military with Morsi “peaked in June, when Morsi stood by twice as officials around him called for Egyptian aggression against Ethiopia and Syria, threatening to suck Egypt into conflicts that it could ill afford, former military officials said.”

   Morsi’s call for Holy War against Assad came just three days after US Secretary of State John Kerry, at a meeting of the Principals’ Committee of the US Government, tried to ram through an immediate bombing campaign against Damascus, but had to settle for the option of arming the Syrian terrorist opposition, leading many observers to conclude that the Egyptian president was acting as part of a US anti-Syrian strategy.

   Egyptian Generals Warn Morsi: Army’s Task Is Defending Borders

   Egyptian military leaders were deeply concerned about the inevitable radicalization of Islamist militants who might return from waging war against the Assad government in Syria. But they were most immediately alarmed by the idea that Morsi might try to deploy the considerable forces of the Egyptian army against Syria. They quickly distanced themselves from the reckless plan for aggression which the president had been toying with at the June 15 mass rally. As the Irish Times reported, Morsi’s bellicose bluster lead to “a veiled rebuke from the army, which issued an apparently bland but sharp-edged statement the next day stressing that its only role was guarding Egypt’s borders.”

   Morsi’s anti-Syrian turn was also a deeply unpopular among the top bureaucrats of the Egyptian government, many of whom had advised him not to go down this path, reported Al Ahram Online on June 16. According to this paper, some powerful bureaucrats saw the potential damage as “irreversible,” and viewed the breaking of diplomatic relations as “a decision made by the President against the advice of top bureaucratic aides….” This account also stressed that, by praising the mediation efforts of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but by pointedly excluding Iran, Morsi was jettisoning the four power contact group he himself had proposed for a Syrian settlement at the nonaligned conference in Tehran last August. “This would simply mean that Egypt has decided that its relations with Tehran would have to be sacrificed in favor of winning the support of Washington, and maybe even Riyadh,” said one source quoted by Al Ahram.

   Egypt’s Generals Fear “Devastating Sunni-Shiite War”

   These developments were considered extremely ominous by top Egyptian civil servants. As Al Ahram wrote, “Egypt, according to concerned quarters in Egyptian bureaucracy, is now being driven to take part in a ‘devastating Sunni-Shiite war’ that could wreck the entire region. The concern is not just about Syria, but about the entire Arab Mashraq, including Lebanon and Iraq particularly. Al Ahram pointed to a possible additional venal motive for Morsi and his controllers in the Muslim Brotherhood: “Egypt has been trying to break the ice with Saudi Arabia for a few weeks now in the hope of soliciting desperately needed financial aid. Saudi Arabia has been adopting a strictly sectarian approach towards developments in Syria since the beginning of the uprising there, and all the more so since the entrance of Hezbollah into the war in Syria on the side of the Assad regime.”

3. Asia and a Post-American Middle East

   “For decades the United States and Saudi Arabia have had a balance of asymmetries in which we depended on them as the swing producer of oil and they depended on us for ultimate military security.” Given America’s burgeoning domestic energy supplies, Nye argues, those “bargains will be struck on somewhat better terms,” at least from the US perspective.

   But, whatever new terms are struck, the degree of US disengagement from the Middle East will depend on how two key questions are answered. First, would even a partial withdrawal of military force create a security vacuum that could be filled by a rival – say, China or Iran? And, second, would any diminution of America’s commitment to the region incite the kind of instability that breeds failed states and terrorist havens?

   President Barack Obama’s current security strategy in Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere suggests that the US will seek to mitigate the latter risk by continuing its covert interventions – particularly its use of unmanned aerial vehicles. Preventing rivals from gaining overweening influence in the region, however, will require a very different type of response – one that will require the backing of old allies, such as Japan, and new friends, like India.

4. Vinnie Said:

   I imagine the Saudis wish they hadn’t programmed him so well. You see, where the Palis are concerned, Obama is a “true believer”, while the Saudis & Friends who created this made up problem know very well this cynical ruse for what it is. But they can’t very well go to Obama now and say, “Can you forget about the Palestinians for a minute and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN ALREDY??!!”

   I think you are mistaken. I believe that obama has been working in cooperation with the GCC on the issue of iran, albeit clandestine. They have done this by helping the GCC to weaken Iran’s proxies syria and hezbullan in Syria by aiding the supply of arms and the recruitment of jihadis, and training for jihadis in Jordan.(bengazi gate). Also, I believe the GCC has reined in hamas and the PA, not withstanding rhetoric and smoke and mirrors(faux pal state). I believe the GCC have wound down the anti israel card because the card was hijacked by Iran and used to sabotage them at home and steal their spheres of influence AND they want Israel on their side against Iran. Hence, Gaza cease fire. Other than the russians, who want their interests protected, things have proceeded according to plan. Syria is weaker, hezbullah spreading thin, Iraq further breaking up, kurd rebels released by Turkish cease fire and likely preparing against Syria, Iraq and Iran. Car bomb in beirut today aagainst hezubllah demonstrates that things are moving according to plan. Syrian jihadi commander saying “no argument with Israel” indicating the plan, increased sunni attacks in iraq part of plan. Next is the focused destabilization internally of Iran using kurds, sunni mercenaries, and internal azeris(25% of Iran pop.)and internal “democratic opposition”. If the Jihadis don’t do more than symbolic attacks against Israel then the focus is clearly on Iran and its proxies. all the ME and N. Africa developments involve the US and GCC. Israel is a sub player half sitting on fence and going along when it suits them(gaza, cease fire,fake pal state,qatar request of israel to rebuild gaza,GCC renewed peace offer to israel, Jordan pal revived confed talk after pal “state”(requirement from 1980’s) It all looks pretty straightforward to me once you ignore diplomatic and political BS and rhetoric and watch the actions. the russians are the only obstruction to the plan, will they make a deal in syria, depends on whose winning?

5. @ Yidvocate: Mr. Rubin: Obama isn’t incompetent. He most certainly has NOT “given up the battle” and the Muslim Brotherhood are most certainly NOT “holding the United States for ransom.” Obama is one of their leaders, no need for them to exert force. Obama’s mission is to facilitate a global sharia Caliphate. He removed the Arab leaders who were in the way of that goal. He has been supporting and running interference for all terrorists from Fort Hood to Benghazi. What do you think Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood are discussing during their numerous meetings in the oval office? Why did he leak Israel’s military capabilities?

   The one ray of hope is the Egyptian civil uprising. It halts Obama’s Caliphate dreams. Will we in the U.S. be as brave?

   Rather than impeach Obama (a process used for legitimate U.S. presidents), I prefer we remove him from the office he is illegally usurping. This way we’ll be able to reverse his draconian laws (and appointments) which have so effectively been used to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.”

   The hour is late, Mr. Rubin.

6. I agree with “Yidvocate” above: What is the big revelation here? I’ve been calling Obama the “Islamist-Butt-Kisser-In-Chief” for years.

   Yes, without question, Obama is the Saudi Manchurian Candidate on most issues – except Iran (more on that in a moment). And I mean that in the most genuine sense of the term; remember in the old movie, the Manchurian Candidate did not know he was a puppet. He was “programmed” to do the bidding of his masters automatically, all the while believing that he was acting in the best interests of the American people.

   I do not believe Obama is a “secret” Moslem, however. I don’t think he has any religion at all. He believes in nothing except his own narcissism (and maybe Marxism). But he is impressed and intimidated by those who do exhibit very strong beliefs…like Islamic radicals, for instance.

   He is the perfect synthesis of the “red/green alliance”. From his kooky left-wing proto-hippie mum, that is where he got the foundation of his political views. But left wingers tend not to have $$$ (except Soros?), but since they are happy to sell out America to whomever of America’s enemies are willing and able to buy them…enter the Saudis (the primary funder and and supporter of Islamist terrorism in the world).

   And so, enter Obama’s Islamist “handlers”, such as Khalid Al Mansour, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi. They filled his head full of anti-Israel b.s., and steeped him in the idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the NUMBER ONE problem in the world, that MUST be resolved in favor of the Palestinians.

   With the rise of a potentially nuclear Iran, in hindsight, I imagine the Saudis wish they hadn’t programmed him so well. You see, where the Palis are concerned, Obama is a “true believer”, while the Saudis & Friends who created this made up problem know very well this cynical ruse for what it is. But they can’t very well go to Obama now and say, “Can you forget about the Palestinians for a minute and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN ALREDY??!!” No, for Obama, the threat of a nuclear Iran is the primary element of coercive leverage he has to make Israel capitulate on the Pali issue. He won’t give that up if he has any choice. And like the HAL computer from that Kubrick flick, the Saudis can’t dissuade him from this…unless they “pull the plug”…but it may be too late for that. He may not be perfect, but they’ve gone to a lot of trouble and expense to have their robot stooge in the White House, and they aren’t going to give him up so easily.

   Which brings me to my final point: “Yidvocate” above asks why Obama has not been impeached. Answer: For the same reason this outrageously unqualified individual got nominated and elected in the first place. Anyone think Obama is a stand-alone, isolated phenomenon?? He is the cherry on top of the sundae. He is the crowning achievement of the Arab Lobby. He is supported by a massive, carefully and patiently constructed infrastructure consisting of a petrodollar-corrupted academe and national media. They would not have dared run him in the first place if they had not taken these steps beforehand to make sure they’d succeed. The fact of his being elected provides the clearest evidence as to why he has not been impeached.

   We’re a big country, though, and while the Bad Guys control a lot, they can’t control everything. Obama may yet be impeached, but I’m not counting on it; that is 80% pleasant daydream. But Obama is so incompetent – he could not be othewise; he’s just a one-trick pony installed to screw Israel, and he can’t be expected to do anything else – that his administration may yet unravel in the next three and a half years. The backlash against him may be so strong by 2016 that regardless of what the Saudi whore media talking heads are saying, we could wind up in Janaury of ’17 with the most pro-Israel president since Nixon, or maybe ever. Which means that the party will be over for the Islamists and their Saudi backers.

   Well, maybe…unless the 2016 election is rigged like the 2012 was. That is the last ditch defense the Bad Guys have set up – and this, I think, is more courtesy of the “red” half of the red/green aliiance. The 2012 election, at least at the presidential level, had all the integrity of the elections in Venezuela. We don’t deal with that problem, it just doesn’t matter what the American people think or how they vote.

7. Truth is Obamas policy is appeasement and anything other than what Busch did (at least for 4 years).

   Obama is a weak leftist who does not know what to do most of the time. He thought he did in his first term but now is unsure of himself as nothing he tried worked except he is good at getting elected in-spite of his accomplishments or lack there of.

8. Of course, Obama will have to end up recognizing the new government. The question is how much and how long he will resist that?

   As long as the drama requires it. US law requires the cutting of funding. Therefore, the show will play out to keep the funding in the long run and the GCC can do o it in the short run if necessary. The US, GCC, Israel, EU prefer the army but cannot be seen to do so. All play to their respective “streets”.

   In other words, the United States must surrender and betray its allies or else it faces disaster.

   The US allies are the GCC, EU. it does not matter now who is in because influence is exerted through the GCC if not directly. They prefer the army or a “player”. Note how the “democratic forces of liberalism” begged for army intervention and cheered it when it happened. I would call that a success for those who orchestrate the “series of conincidences” (LOL) They gave them a choice between Morsi and the army. A suckers game.

   The Obama Administration,…….has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom.

   Is he watching the Punch and Judy show? I advise him to watch the puppeteers rather than the puppets.

   Naturally, this is also involved in domestic politics since the Obama Administration will be largely judged by voters…on whether they can prevent such (imaginary) attacks. ……..It should be emphasized that aside from everyone else, this is a ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t even thought about this tactic

   you can be sure that the GCC and its allies in the US have not only thought about it but have been implementing far worse. has Barry noticed the US stealth Jihad, does he believe that it is being facilitated intentionally or in ignorance by US politicians. All the terrorist infrastructure is still up in the US in spite of all the revelations.

9. @ Yidvocate:
   To impeach him? The whole far-left crowd most be impeached. They all think alike, and so do the politicians on the other side of the isle. All subscribe to the same see-no-islam club.

10. Second, the Benghazi affair was the model of the Obama Administration worldview: If you allow a video insulting Muslims, four American officials will be killed. If you support the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, thousands of Americans might die. This is the result of placing not politics but counterterrorism in command.

    this is way out of date, no one mentions the video bs anymore. benghazi exposed the collobration of the US with the GCC, Turkey and Jordan to supply libyan arms to the syrian jihadis, train them in Jordan, vet saudi recruitment of jihadis with US intelligence and CIA aiding Saudi massive arms purcharse from Croatia. did barry fall asleep?

    Is President Obama going to come down on the side of the Islamist ex-regime, remember this includes the Salafists in objective terms, or the new regime? …..
    Obama told him that he still regarded him as the democratically elected president of Egypt.

    Obama maintains ties with Morsi, GCC maintains ties with morsi, mb through qatar and salafis through Saudi; Salafis were invited into govt while MB under arrest(go figure 🙂 ) US, GCC, maintain direct ties with the military. This is a game of smoke and mirrors purely for the street where the US fulfills its legal obligation in US and international law while its partners do the rest under the table.. Obama tells morsi what he is legally bound to say in US law. diplomat speak should not be relied on to demonstrate policy in reality.

11. I see many things wrong with Rubins perspective and many errors in judgement. the firs error is to believe all you hear being disseminated in diplomat-speak.

    First, let’s remember that in the face of advancing totalitarianism in the Middle East, U.S. policy completely failed.

    One may believe this if you don’t believe the collaborative relationship between the US and the GCC and that the jihadis, salafis, MB, are part of, and do the bidding of, the sunni islamic, clerical, financial,activist, jihdist network. Qatar runs MB and Saudi runs salfi/al qaeda so that whichever jihadis benefit so does the GCC. furthermore, as they are tools and vehicles to be used one must not get confused with the red herring meant for “useful idiots”. MB run by qatar currently out while salafis run by saudi currently in and please note that it si the GCC that the current military govt has contacted for help. the US posturing can be interpreted to show that they are complying with law by supporting “democracy” as their collaborators the GCC can do the rest. maintaining fictions is part of eyewool. EG the US pretends to be cautious about supplying arms to syrian rebels which doesn’t matter because their collaborators the GCC and Turkey are already doing it with the help of the US.

    So who has been waging the battle meanwhile? …. the embattled Tunisian and Lebanese ant-Islamists; the Saudis (at times) and the Persian Gulf Arabs (except for Qatar) and Jordan.

    I find this statement naive and facilitating the red herrings. Who are the lebanese anti islamists? the sunni jihdis paid by GCC are fighting the hezbullah jihadis paid by Iran. the biggest canard is the saudis and GCC the saudis, Qatar, Jordan, GCC are completely in constant sync in originating, collaborating, funding, and recruiting sunni jihadis to fight in syria. is Rubin out of the loop, is he not aware also of the US role exposed at benghazi?

12. What’s the big revelation Barry? That Obama has been the most Islamist and Jihadist enabling president of the USA has been obvious from the start of his first presidency. It’s his only consistent theme. Every plank of his foreign policy alienates friends while empowering radical and ascendent Islam.

    Make no mistake. This is not incompetence. Obama was raised a Muslim. He understands too well the Muslim mind. He knows better than any president before that projection of weakness, unresolve, compromise and appeasement only encourages intransigence among the Muslims – “bet on the strong horse”, etc.

    He is every bit the Manchurian Candidate.

    The totally inexplicable part is why he has not been impeached?

    Arron Klein’s new book “Impeachable Offenses” chronicles the litany of impeachable transgressions perpetrated by Obama on the American people. Why have they not impeached him? Why aren’t the people taking to the streets in protest? Why is this all covered up by the media?