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
Weakness is not a policy
In an earlier post, I discussed a Zogby poll that finds that despite two and a half years of the Obama administration bashing Israel, the United States is now
less popular in Arab countries than it was during President Bush's last year in office.
At London's Daily Telegraph,
Niles Gardiner comments (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The Zogby poll overwhelmingly demonstrates that weakness and a markedly softer approach to the projection of American global power do not make the US president more popular abroad. In fact they simply strengthen the position of America’s enemies, undermine her effectiveness as a global power, and draw contempt and derision from both friend and foe alike.
Of course, world leadership is not a popularity contest, nor should it be. But it should be deeply worrying for the White House when a genocidal tyrant like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now viewed more favorably across many parts of the Middle East than the leader of the free world. George W. Bush may not have been loved in the Arab world, but at least he was feared and respected. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the crushing of the Al Qaeda-led insurgency in Iraq demonstrated that America meant business, and that it would be prepared to wield hard power to defend its interests against the enemies of freedom.
There is little evidence, however, that Barack Obama is viewed with fear or with respect in one of the most volatile regions of the world. If anything he is seen as a weak-kneed pushover, with a confused and flailing foreign policy. This will ultimately haunt America as Iran races towards becoming a nuclear power and traditional US allies in the region lose faith in Washington’s willingness and ability to stand with them. The White House’s mantra of ‘leading from behind’ is looking more and more foolish by the day, and the world’s only superpower has fewer friends on its side as it faces an increasingly dangerous array of adversaries.
Indeed.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian engagement, Syrian engagement, Zogby poll
Wikileaks: US financing Syrian opposition groups
Secret State Department cables disclosed by Wikileaks reveal that the United States has been funding the Syrian opposition at least since 2006, including the establishment of a
satellite television network.
The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.”
Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital.
The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.
The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Damascus at risk.
Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. “A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.
It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients’ personal safety.
If the Obama administration has continued to support this I'm amazed. Stopping programs that are helpful out of fear of
offending Muslims is right up
their alley.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Syrian engagement, Syrian reform, Wikileaks
Syria arming Gadhafi?
In an earlier post, I reported on the possibility that
Syrian pilots are in the service of Muammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya. Now, a report from a Syrian dissident group indicates that Syria is
providing Gadhafi with arms as well.
Sources close to RPS have disclosed that Assad of Syria is sending arms to Qaddafi of Libya to kill his people with. It is not enough for Assad to kill Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Israelis, and Americans, now this Damascene Dracula is thirsty for Libyan blood.
There are also rumors circulating Assad is arming the Islamists in the hope the oil fields they capture will play an important role in extending the Iranian-Syrian axis of evil. But, there is no confirmation to this rumor.
Some believe Assad is following someone else ‘s orders. A higher authority that keeps him in power and protects his rule from ever being dismantled. We, at RPS, believe he is acting alone for fear that if the Libyan people win after facing such violence by their oppressor, the Syrian people will sacrifice their lives for a better Syria. Assad is reasoning Qaddafi must win to discourage the Syrians from any reckless behavior such as seeking freedom, democracy, and accountability.
But the Syrian dissident community is mostly watching a White House whose leadership is literally like trainees learning on the job. If it took president Obama 2 years to finally concede that the Bush-Cheney team had it right on Guantanamo, our hope it will take him even less to concede that negotiating with the likes of Assad and Ahmadinajead is a dead-end street. We are not holding our breath though.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, Syria, Syrian engagement
Syria provides ballistic missiles to Hezbullah, Clinton issues stern warning
One of the main things the Wikileaks document dump shows is how the US position in international affairs has deteriorated.
In February of this year, the US discovered that Syria was transferring 'new' ballistic missiles to Hezbullah. Syria agreed to stop doing so, but one week later, the US discovered that the transfers were continuing. The reaction? Secretary of State Clinton issued a stern warning to the Syrians. Smart diplomacy? No.
Totally ineffective diplomacy.
Just a week after President Bashar al-Assad of Syria assured a top State Department official that his government was not sending sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah, the Obama administration lodged a confidential protest accusing Syria of doing precisely what it had denied doing.
“In our meetings last week it was stated that Syria is not transferring any ‘new’ missiles to Lebanese Hizballah,” noted a cable sent by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in February, using an alternative spelling for the militant group. “We are aware, however, of current Syrian efforts to supply Hizballah with ballistic missiles. I must stress that this activity is of deep concern to my government, and we strongly caution you against such a serious escalation.”
A senior Syrian Foreign Ministry official, a cable from the American Embassy in Damascus reported, flatly denied the allegation. But nine months later, administration officials assert, the flow of arms had continued to Hezbollah. According to a Pentagon official, Hezbollah’s arsenal now includes up to 50,000 rockets and missiles, including some 40 to 50 Fateh-110 missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and most of Israel, and 10 Scud-D missiles. The newly fortified Hezbollah has raised fears that any future conflict with Israel could erupt into a full-scale regional war.
...
In February, the White House announced that a new American ambassador would be sent to Syria after a five-year hiatus. The next day, William J. Burns, a State Department under secretary, met with the Syrian leader.
During the session, Mr. Burns repeated American concerns about weapons smuggling to Hezbollah, one dispatch noted. Mr. Assad replied that while he could not be Israel’s policeman, no “new” weapons were being sent to Hezbollah.
Soon after the meeting, though, a cable noted that the Americans received intelligence reports that the Syrians were about to provide Hezbollah with Scud-D missiles, which are based on North Korean technology. (Some recent intelligence reports conclude that the group has about 10 such missiles stored in a Syrian warehouse that Hezbollah uses, according to American officials. The Defense Intelligence Agency believes that two have probably been moved to Lebanon, according to the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.) The United States officials also worried about Hezbollah’s vow to avenge the death of Imad Mughniyah, a senior fighter killed in a 2008 car bombing the militant group said was the work of the Israelis.
In a classified cable in February, Mrs. Clinton directed the embassy to deliver a warning to Faisal al-Miqdad, the deputy foreign minister. “I know you are a strategic thinker, which is why I want to underscore for you that, from our perspective, your operational support for Hizballah is a strategic miscalculation that is damaging your long-term national interests.”
The Syrian official’s response was dismissive, according to an American cable. He denied that any weapons had been sent, argued that Hezbollah would not take military action if not provoked and expressed surprise at the stern American protest. The complaint, he said, “shows the U.S. has not come to a mature position (that would enable it) to differentiate between its own interests and Israel’s.”
By the way, the Fateh 110's are considered a major threat because they are quite accurate. But the dismissive manner in which the Syrians treated Clinton's entreaties tell you all you need to know about the Obama administration's 'smart diplomacy.' I can't even call it an epic fail because degrading the United States' military capabilities is something President Obama wanted to do all along.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Obama, degrading US military capabilities, Fateh 110, Hillary Clinton, Syrian engagement, Wikileaks
