Posted on 08/30/2014 5:46:53 AM PDT by Bruce Buckley
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, 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.
UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link. A day without Instapundit is like a kiss without a beard.
Is this not treason?
You forgot one, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/nationalguard.htm
So the author is basically saying all the red lines in Syria were bluffs, while the true nature was to run the bluff of red lines and pull a double cross against saud and qatar and allow isis to gain strength and postponing any action against isis to draw out the monetary exchanges and observe and the walk in the garden with General Dempsey was simply intended to be a ruse?
No red under Word Wrap:ON so am posting.
By your tactics, we will know your strategy.
The author is also telling you that VJ runs the WH - via instructions from the Iranian mullahs.
Moo-cow and VJ take Obizmal off to a private conference when decisions have to be made. Obizmal afterward supports whatever position VJ took prior to the conference - via Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas by Edward Klein.
Clown Prince nobama has a strategy...and has been open about it. He is “transforming” America. He is effective in doing so. It is very difficult for many to accept that they support a traitor in his ruinous ways. In a sense, they are co-traitors by their support. Treason, I’d say.
The rise of the Islamo-Nazis straddling the Nineveh plains aided the cause of the Shia mullahs in Tehran, or those formerly represented by Maliki in Baghdad? That's a Sunni franchise of the chain, and they don't even offer an opportunity for submission to Shiites, when they cross paths. They just execute them.
I'm not denying his claims regarding backdoor connections to Tehran, but the Muslim Brotherhood and their Sunni supporters in the Kingdoms are already embedded in Foggy Bottom and on staff in Washington. Ledeen doesn't address this novel cooperation between these two strains of Islam that have been killing one another in bunches almost from the hour Mohammed died.
Notice the Qatar articles this morning about them funding terrorists? Looks like a jab to me.
Watch Churchill’s speech that I posted, it is fabulous
Is this not a high crime or a misdemeanor?
Great speech. Thanks.
Secret? It was no secret. He wrote in his book that he would side with the Muslims. Doesn't anyone ever pay attention anymore?
yep, am not one to have faith in vj nor anything that has a (d) label since cuban missile crisis ... if the author is correct in this opinion (as all written is normally opinion) am of the opinion this too might be a ruse. So many ruses ... so little time, which if one adds a capital ‘T’ to time becomes a whole new set of misinformation with nearly no information which one should or could have faith or trust in. The fog exercises are becoming more numerous by all writers though, myself included, and I’m not a writer except here. Don’t want to call ruse but am beginning to lean in that direction.
I posted a similar idea on another thread about this article, and got no responses. Why would Obama back Sunnis if he is loyal to Iran? This make no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.