So many Americans are so dissatisfied with the two current candidates
for the presidency that they are missing the real story. They ought to be horrified
at the way Barack Obama has conducted his presidency. For whatever reason, they
are not. The media will not allow them to do so.
And yet, the two current candidates rose up in the Age of
Obama. If you think that that is a coincidence, think again.
Today’s topic, scrupulously ignored by the media and the
presidential candidates, is Obama’s conduct of the relationship with Iran.
Believing that he had to get a deal with the ayatollahs at any price, our
bumbling president, a man who was grossly unprepared to conduct foreign or any
other kind of policy, was so desperate that he allowed himself to be
outmaneuvered and humiliated. When the president allows himself to be
humiliated the nation is humiliated also. If you were wondering why so many
people are so angry, it’s the place to look.
The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon has written a book
about Obama and Iran. Eli Lake has reviewed the book for the Daily Beast.
It all began with the uprising that followed the stolen
Iranian election in 2009. As opposed to the Arab Spring where the Obama
administration sided with the protesters and particularly with the Muslim
Brotherhood, it refused to do anything to support the rebellious masses of Iranians
in 2009.
Eli Lake explains:
One of
the great hypotheticals of Barack Obama's presidency involves the Iranian
uprising that began on June 12, 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced
the winner of contested presidential elections. What if the president had done
more to help the protesters when the regime appeared to be teetering?
It's
well known he was slow to react. Obama publicly downplayed the prospect of real
change at first, saying the candidates whom hundreds of thousands of Iranians
were risking their lives to support did not represent fundamental change. When
he finally did speak out, he couldn't bring himself to say
the election was stolen: "The world is watching and inspired by their
participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election
was."
But
Obama wasn't just reluctant to show solidarity in 2009, he feared the
demonstrations would sabotage his secret outreach to Iran. In his new book, "The
Iran Wars," Wall Street Journal reporter Jay Solomon uncovers new
details on how far Obama went to avoid helping Iran's green movement. Behind
the scenes, Obama overruled advisers who wanted to do what America had done at
similar transitions from dictatorship to democracy, and signal America's
support.
Obama’s advisers wanted to support and to facilitate a
transition to democracy. Our nation had done so on many previous occasions. The
president overruled them. Either he had no problem with the ayatollahs or he
was in thrall to a real estate developer named Valerie Jarrett. Or both.
What did the administration do?
Solomon
reports that Obama ordered the CIA to sever contacts it had with the green
movement's supporters. "The Agency has contingency plans for supporting
democratic uprisings anywhere in the world. This includes providing dissidents
with communications, money, and in extreme cases even arms," Solomon
writes. "But in this case the White House ordered it to stand down."
At the
time, Solomon reports, Obama's aides received mixed messages. Members of the
Iranian diaspora wanted the president to support the uprisings. Dissident
Iranians from inside the country said such support would be the kiss of death.
In the end, Obama did nothing, and Iran's supreme leader blamed him anyway for
fomenting the revolt.
Obama
from the beginning of his presidency tried to turn the country's ruling clerics
from foes to friends. It was an obsession. And even though the president would
impose severe sanctions on the country's economy at the end of his first term
and beginning of his second, from the start of his presidency, Obama made it
clear the U.S. did not seek regime change for Iran.
Why did Obama want to make the ayatollahs into friends? Apparently,
if George W. saw them as members of the axis of evil, the deep thinking Obama
concluded that they must be good. The enemy of my enemy… or something like
that.
Clearly, he did not care that they were the leading state
sponsor of terrorism. He did not think of how the world would react to see the
United States providing support, recognition and money to a state sponsor of
terrorism. Did Obama green light Muslim terrorism?
What did Obama do? Lake reports:
As Solomon
reports, Obama ended U.S. programs to document Iranian human rights abuses. He
wrote personal letters to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
assuring him the U.S. was not trying to overthrow him. Obama repeatedly
stressed his respect for the regime in his statements marking Iran's annual
Nowruz celebration.
His
quest to engage the mullahs seems to have influenced Obama's decision-making on
other issues too. When he walked away from his red line against Syria's use of
chemical weapons in 2013, Solomon reports, both U.S. and Iranian officials had
told him that nuclear negotiations would be halted if he intervened against
Bashar al-Assad.
And, we must underscore that Obama let the situation in
Syria turn into an unmitigated horror because the Iranians told him not to
intervene. What else were you expecting from Jeremiah Wright’s protégé?
Finally, when it came to negotiating the nuclear deal, the
Americans were no match for the Iranians:
Eventually,
the Iranians wore down the U.S. delegation. At the beginning of the talks in
2013, the U.S. position was for Iran to dismantle much of its nuclear
infrastructure. By the end of the talks in 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry
and his team "agreed that Iran would then be allowed to build an
industrial-scale nuclear program, with hundreds of thousands of machines, after
a ten year period of restraint."
Other
U.S. red lines were demolished too. The final deal would allow the U.N. ban on
Iranian missile development to phase out after eight years, and the arms
embargo against Iran to expire after five. Iran would not have to acknowledge
that it had tried to develop a nuclear weapon, even though samples the Iranians
collected at its Parchin facility found evidence of man-made uranium.
America gave away the store and told the Iranians that they
could do as they pleased, as long as Obama’s successors would have to deal with
it.
The diplomacy gave us something like a deal. The Iranians
correctly concluded that Obama had granted them power, prestige and legitimacy,
to say nothing of a free hand in promoting more terrorism and in developing
more advanced weapons to use against the West and against Israel. And of
course, the deal has set in motion a process that will most likely lead to
nuclear proliferation in the region.
Lake concludes:
Kerry's
diplomacy succeeded. But the Middle East got war nonetheless. "The
Revolutionary Guard continues to develop increasingly sophisticated weapons
systems, including ballistic missiles inscribed with threats against Israel on
their nose cones," Solomon writes in the book's concluding chapter.
"Khamenei and other revolutionary leaders, meanwhile, fine-tune their rhetorical
attacks against the United States, seeming to need the American threat to
justify their existence."
There
was a chance for a better outcome. There is no guarantee that an Obama
intervention would have been able to topple Khamenei back in 2009, when his
people flooded the streets to protest an election the American president
wouldn't say was stolen. But it was worth a try. Imagine if that uprising had
succeeded. Perhaps then a nuclear deal could have brought about a real peace.
Instead, Obama spent his presidency misunderstanding Iran's dictator, assuring
the supreme leader America wouldn't aid his citizens when they tried to change
the regime that oppresses them to this day.
It’s the Age of Obama. If you support the president you are in favor of coddling terrorists and defending one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. The story is out there. Nearly
everyone is ignoring it.
6 comments:
If it were only coddling terrorists...
The Moron-in-Chief has wrecked everything from the military, to the EPA, to the USDA, to the IRS, and beyond. Everything he touches turns to... well, you know.
The silly berk couldn't manage a Subway shop.
I await Ares' statement for the defense.
This just in: Iran is our greatest enemy in the world. And we just gave them $400 million in untraceable cash. And Obama loves America. Give me a break.
One has to wonder if Obama, Kerry, Earnest, et al actually believe what they're saying.
And if Trump wins, Obama will NOT be going away. He'll probably have daily press conferences. He's saying in D.C. until his youngest daughter graduates from the Sidwell Friends School, where all Obama voters are able to send their children. I love it when people say it's for "security reasons." Uh-huh. Exactly, perhaps the public schools should have more, er, security. D.C. public schools were good enough to for President Carter's daughter. Why aren't they good enough for the Clintons and Obamas? Oh yeah, "security." Don't expect the press to cover this kind of rank hypocrisy... the send their kids to pivate school, too. Public schools are for the little people. Leona Helmsley would be very much at home in today's Democrat Party.
Perhaps Jeb! and the other 15 Republican wannabes who pledged to support the party nominee could help out a wee bit by attacking Obama's presidency and Hillary's corruption instead of their deafening (and dishonorable) silence.
Stuart: It’s the Age of Obama. If you support the president you are in favor of coddling terrorists and defending one of the most oppressive regimes in the world. The story is out there. Nearly everyone is ignoring it.
Its still curious to me why the Right is so interested in demonizing Iran's fake democracy and supporting Saudi Arabia's true theocratic dictatorship. It looks like they are interchangeably bad, but one is our friend and one our enemy?
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/no-iran-not-democracy
Its not clear how to support regime-change in any country. It would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to coddle anyone, but we need too much oil every year to that game.
But if you're a neocon, Iran is so easy to hate. All you have to do it not look in the mirror against your own country's military and economic manipulations of the world, and pretend Iran is responsible for that too.
Ares, I can readily detest Iran's current government AND the Saudi royal family (aka government) at the same time, recognize that America doesn't have a spotless record, and STILL be aghast that we have a President activly supporting an avowed (in word and deed) enemy.
"Obama’s advisers wanted to support and to facilitate a transition to democracy. Our nation had done so on many previous occasions. The president overruled them. Either he had no problem with the ayatollahs or he was in thrall to a real estate developer named Valerie Jarrett. Or both."
Jarrett may well be the "face" of whatever or whomever Obama is in thrall to; that he is supporting Iran's interests over everyone else's is NOW inescapable.
PS to Stuart - it should be fairly clear by now that I am NOT a robot, but I have to go through the verify step for every comment, and the last foray took an unreasonable amount of time. Can I get a "trusted traveler" pass somehow?
Post a Comment