Oil and Israel keep the US critically involved in the Middle East. But the matter is much more involved than this. What is not mentioned much in the press is the fact that before we invaded Iraq, there were two imperialist states in the Middle East: Iraq and Iran. The neighboring states had been concerned for the imperialist tendencies of both countries for years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, their fears became justified.The post Bush Iraq is a much more passive nation, leaving only Iran as the Middle East's primary concern. The fact of the matter is that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and others join with Israel in the desire to have the United States continue a [military] presence in the region. We are not in the Middle East simply to insure that our "addiction" for oil be fed, as many liberal critics would have you believe. Understand that if Egypt fell into the hands of radical Islam and Israel was destroyed, it would be only a matter of time before most of Africa would become a breeding ground for Extreme Islam. This Radical Islamic Wave would then move through Turkey, where it already has a foothold, and into Europe from the South.
What must never be forgotten or lost in this evolving circumstance is that Radical Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world and is determined to overwhelm its non-Islamic neighbors in the name of allah. That is what is going on in the Middle East. Currently, these Middle Eastern states are in the hands of Extreme Islam: Syria, Gaza, Iran, Qatar and the Sudan. Standing on the verge of Radial Islamic rule are Turkey, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Libyia, and east of the Middle East proper, Pakistan. If these six nations became states of Radical Islam within the year, Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia would have no choice but to make alliances with Extreme Islam. Israel would be destroyed, United States' influence within this vast region lost, and our national economy put into a death spiral.
And where is Obama? He has refused to visit Israel since becoming "president." He has sided with the anti-Israeli forces in branding Israel an "occupier" of the West Bank (see his Cairo speech). He has worked to give $900 billion in aid to Hamas in Gaza [1], on one occasion and another $400 billion on a second occasion[2] a year later. He has publicly humiliated Israel's Prime Minister on several occasion, first [for example] walking out of a White House meeting to go have din din with the family and, again, refusing to take pictures with the Prime Minister. He has sat around the White House for two stinking years, doing nothing while Iran has worked to become a nuclear power right under the nose of Mr. Obama. His "sanctions" against Iran, described, by some, as the harshest in modern history, have proven to be just the opposite. The Administration has promoted more than 10,000 exceptions to its Iranian Sanction Policy as reported in The Hill (December 24, 2010) [3] -- investigations to follow in the new House of Representatives.
Tonight, we watch as Egypt burns. Will the radicals take charge of the student rebellion? Can a hated Mubarak survive long enough to transition a new and equally sectarian, pro-West government? And, as if the situation was not bad enough, we have these headlines describing an ever increasing crisis within the region raising even more critical questions:
Thousands protest in Jordan, demand PM step down...
Huge anti-government protest in Albania...
New protests erupt in Yemen...
An even larger question is this: will Obama concern himself more with looking like a leader than actually dealing with the situation? Understand that if the Middle East goes up in smoke, Obama will not survive the 2012 elections and his signature legislation, ObamaCare, will surely be taken down by a succeeding Republican regime. He HAS to win re-election.
While Biden is busy defending Mubarak in this Hill report, the Telegraph is reporting an Administration secretly supporting the rebellion. While the article in the Telegraph implies Bush Administration involvement, we believe this misrepresents the facts in an effort to give Obama an "out" in the event that his strategies backfire. We have good reason to make this charge in view of the reporting by ABC news that Obama's main man, David Axelrod, is quoted as saying that "on several occasions [Obama} directly confronted Mubarack" in an effort "to get ahead of this [crisis] " cf the ABC report.
And there you have it, a brief over-view of the Middle East Crisis and the pending political crisis for Mr. Obama. We have an entire region out of control on the one hand and , on the other, an administration that does not know its foreign policy butt from a jar of kosher pickles.
We are all sooooo screwed.
End Notes:
1. Aid to Gaza is noted in this NY Times article. The fantasy that the money will go to the Palestinian people, not Hamas, is preposterous in view of the fact that Hamas is the ruling entity in Gaza. The money was set aside on or before Feb. 21, 2009, just two or three days after the signing of the infamous Stimulus Bill.
2. June of 2010 as reported in The Hill.
3. Understand that such reporting by the Times is nothing more than rhetorical cover for an Administration currently (in the first months of Obama's rule) pushing a love affair with the Muslim world. Within six days of his inauguration, Obama had given his first "press conference" and it was not with an American news outlet. Rather , it was with al Jazeera, the Arab news service for the Middle East. In June of 2009, he went to the University of Cairo to give a "major speech" to the Islamic World. The report of this speech can be found in an article published by PBS (emphasis on "BS") . Since giving that speech, Obama has failed to build upon its rhetorical beginnings and his stature as a reformer of American/Muslim relationships has fallen flat on its face.
4. The reader is given the following link, a detailed summary of the Obama Muslim Doctrine, written by reporters from al Jazeera . Click on this link and as you read, keep in mind that two years later, the Obama Doctrine as outlined in the alJazeera article has proven to be a dismal failure. Note that the article was written just 8 days after Obama's inauguration on Jan 20th, 2009.
5. Related to the above, Canada Free Press reported in October of 2008, the endorsement of Obama by al Jazeera. Here is the opening paragraph in that report:
Canada Free Press article By Cliff Kincaid Monday, October 20, 2008
Colin Powell’s predicted and expected endorsement of Barack Obama was transformed into big news by the pro-Obama media. But Arab propaganda channel Al-Jazeera’s intervention in the U.S. presidential contest is also extremely significant. Al-Jazeera, a mouthpiece for enemies of the United States, aired a Moammar Gadhafi speech praising Obama and followed with a story depicting supporters of Sarah Palin as white racist Christians. The channel is subsidized by the oil-rich Sunni Muslim plutocracy/dictatorship in Qatar.
No comments:
Post a Comment