Israel Matzav

Obama's 0-fer the Middle East

To attain an 0-fer, one must repeatedly try and fail at something. Barry Rubin describes President Obama's 0-fer the Middle East, although in the case of what used to be called the 'peace process,' we are better off that Obama failed as you can see from the graphic above.

A few days before taking office, on January 15, 2009, Barack Obama gave an interview to CBS News and explained his Middle East policy:

“We’re gonna have to take a regional approach. We’re gonna have to involve Syria in discussions. We’re gonna have to engage Iran in ways that we have not before. We’ve gotta have a clear bottom line that Israel’s security is paramount. But that also we have to create a two-state solution where people can live side by side in peace.”

The pro-Syria policy, despite that regime’s repressive and anti-American nature, failed. The Obama Administration’s proposed solution now is to replace that regime with one that’s likely to be a revolutionary Islamist anti-American regime.

The pro-Iran policy failed. The Obama Administration’s proposed solution now is to have tough sanctions—which is good—but then to insist that this will solve the problem and not to deal with the inevitable outcome of Iran getting nuclear weapons, not to mention Tehran’s continuing subversion and backing for terrorism. The Obama Administration is eager to make a deal with Tehran and if the Iranian leaders were only a bit more flexible they could probably get a diplomatic arrangements with that U.S. government that would give them much of what they want. As so often has happened in the Middle East it is only the radicals’ intransigence which prevents them from gaining appeasement from the West.

The “peace process” policy failed. And this administration has done more to undermine Israel’s security than all the previous presidencies put together. The problems include: pushing Israel to ease the pressure on Hamas in the Gaza Strip; helping a genocide-oriented anti-Israel government into power in Egypt; same thing in Syria; making America’s leading ally in the region a Turkish regime that was viciously anti-Israel; and more.

An American reader writes me, “I’ve tried explaining the situation in the Middle East to friends and there are blank stares. I believe what they’re thinking is that how come, if it is so bad, I haven’t seen in the newspapers or on the national news?  The New York Times doesn’t mention it at all.”

This is an accurate description of what a very large portion—a majority?—of Americans think. The same point applies to the economy (media explanation: it’s getting better) and many other issues. The coming election is, among other things, going to be a test of how much of a hold the mass media has on people.

The Obama Presidency cannot end soon enough. Four more years of it would be a disaster.

Labels: Arab spring, Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian engagement, Middle East peace process, Obama's obsession with Israel, Syrian engagement

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:34 AM