Obamageddon in the Middle East

kerThe easiest way to tell that Obama has run out of things to do in the Middle East is his desperate pivot to the peace process. The never-ending peace process, which is now on its fourth administration and its sixth prime minister, is the gift shop in the museum of the Middle East. It’s the place you stop by on the way to the exit because it’s convenient and everyone back home expects some souvenir peace t-shirts.

In 2013, the West Bank and Gaza are more irrelevant to events in the Middle East than ever before. Like toddlers left alone in their high chairs, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have spent the last year whining that no one is paying attention to them. And no one in the Arab world is paying attention to them because suddenly killing Shiites has become more of a priority than killing Jews.

If in the past Western diplomats could claim with a straight face that peace would stabilize the region, after the diplomats tore it apart with the Arab Spring that line ought to come with its own laugh track.

If Arafat’s corpse rose from the grave to dance the Hora and Netanyahu learned to shout, “Allahu Akbar,” no one in the region would even notice. The Syrians, Turks, Qataris, Saudis, Lebanese and Iraqis are too busy fighting in the misnamed Syrian Civil War to even pretend to care about a peace process that they never really cared about even back when they were pretending to care about it.

Now they aren’t even pretending.

Obama’s trip to Israel to jumpstart another miserable round of non-negotiations between an Israeli side that wants a deal and a Palestinian Authority side that wants an excuse not to make a deal because it wouldn’t survive a day after signing an agreement was another international demonstration of his cluelessness.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s fumbling attempts to play peacemaker in Israel while the rest of the region burns is proof that the administration he works for has no idea what to do about the Sunni-Shiite civil war tearing apart the Middle East.

Iran, like Syria, has been offered another feeble face-saving agreement after hollow threats of action that no one, including the Syrians or Iranians, actually believed. Kerry had to be saved from humiliating his country by the French. And it’s the President of France who headed to Jerusalem to address the Israeli parliament, a task that Obama dodged to push a peace speech to a selected student audience.

After its intervention in Mali, its push for action on Libya, Syria and now Iran; France is far more relevant in the Middle East than Obama.

France isn’t right, but it is decisive and its leaders understand that nuance is a game for fools. The cheese-eaters that devoted liberal turophiles like John Kerry once looked to as a counterweight to the Texas cowboy have once again become the leading Western practitioners of cowboy diplomacy.

After the collapse of Obama’s Arab Spring, France began to set the Western agenda in the Middle East. It was the French who pushed hardest for intervention in Libya. Obama was just the muscle they brought along. And it was the French who would have dragged him into Syria if not for the UK parliament.

While Obama was making empty boasts about Al Qaeda being on the road to defeat, the French were actually doing something about it by going into Mali. It was the French who stopped Kerry from giving a blank check to Iran’s nuclear program. Now France’s nerdy bespectacled president is being received with cheers in Jerusalem while vowing to stand up to Iran, even as Obama’s visit is a fading memory.

Right or wrong, France has an agenda for the Middle East, while America’s Nero is playing second fiddle to François. France is rising as a regional power, while Obama’s America has become a running joke.

America’s relationships in the Middle East are over. Egypt is turning back to the Russians, Turkey is looking to China and even the Saudis are sick and tired of dealing with a government that can’t make up its mind about anything bigger than a presidential banquet. Israel, which seems to be the only country whose leaders actually thought Obama would do something about Iran, is angry and disgusted.

And those were the four countries in the region that American influence depended on.

France, for better or worse, has picked a side in the Sunni-Shiite split. Obama not only won’t pick a side, he refuses to recognize that the split exists. Instead his Iranian negotiations were taking place in some alternate universe in which the goal was a settlement, rather than a balance of power.

There’s only one thing that is going to prevent the Middle East from going nuclear, in more than one sense of the word, and that’s an end to the Iranian nuclear program. The Saudis, Egyptians and other Sunni powers are not going to stop their own rush to the bomb for Kerry’s “24 Hours to a Nuke” deal with Iran. And the Israelis aren’t going to stop mapping bombing runs from Saudi airfields over it.

But that wasn’t something Kerry could deliver. Clinton’s sanctions didn’t stop North Korea from going nuclear. Obama’s sanctions weren’t going to stop Iran from doing the same thing.

Kerry’s nuke giveaway only demonstrated American irrelevance in the age of Obama. The deal would have accomplished nothing except to give Obama a distraction from the unraveling of his disastrous domestic policies. And so the French, in their new capacity as leaders of the free world, slapped down the master yachtsman and sent him back to dogpaddle in Massachusetts.

It was an embarrassing setback, or would have been if a single American newspaper had done anything except reprint talking points from the administration and its supporters praising the deal, but in the Middle East, it was the final blow to American prestige.

John Kerry had taken the already low bar set by Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton and found a way to limbo under it.

The Middle East is still tearing itself apart in a Sunni-Shiite war. It’s an Obamageddon unleashed by the Arab Spring which broke along explicitly religious lines in Syria and is taking the rest of the region with it. As the Sunni axis of Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt prepares to collide with the Shiite axis of Iran, Iraq and Syria, the man who helped unleash it all stands on the sidelines and scratches his head.

*

Don’t miss Jamie Glazov’s video interview with Daniel Greenfield about Obama’s Destructive Agenda, his Muslim Brotherhood Romance, the Anthony Weiner-Huma Abedin saga, and much, much more:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • truebearing

    Your answer is completely incoherent. You want Israel to conquer her attackers, annex their land, expel their citizens, but not use boots on the ground? How is Israel supposed to conquer and hold these lands with no “land wars?” How is “defensive conquest” accomplished if troops aren’t involved? And how exactly are people expelled if no one is there to expel them?

    Maybe it’s time for you to take a break and get yourself a nice, cool glass of Verbal Immodium.

  • Texas Patriot

    I hate to tell you, but you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

  • Texas Patriot

    Barry Goldwater didn’t favor wasting American blood and treasure.

  • Texas Patriot

    You’re losing it, big guy.

  • truebearing

    Now we can add paranoia to your list of attributes. Lest you forget, you have proposed this ridiculous theory before, and my answer will be the same. I am not, nor will I ever be Rush Limbaugh, and while I like Rush, I don’t listen to him except occasionally when he is on Fox. It’s not that I wouldn’t like listening to him. I just don’t have time. That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment. Does my similarity entitle me to as much money as he has, or at least a decent percentage?

    You remind me of the Paul fanatics and Obama supporters. Full of utopian zeal, paralogic, and infallible ideology.

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “That being said, comparing me to Rush is a compliment.”

    Thank you for admitting that. I am not at all surprised.

  • truebearing

    That is my point. Israel is hamstrung by the decadent, weak, and in some cases, anti-semitic West. Now we have a president who is openly hostile to Israel, hence my disbelief that anyone would suggest Israel conquer and ethnically cleanse its neighbors.

    Don’t misunderstand. I would love to see Islam wiped off the map, but liking doesn’t make it so.

  • truebearing

    The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel. If you weren’t so dense, you would see that. If that isn’t true, then why is Saudi Arabia willing to let Israel use its airspace to attack Iran?

  • Texas Patriot

    TB: “The war between Shiites and Sunnis is a blessing for Israel.”

    I tend to agree with that idea. But Israel needs more land, and her best hope of getting it is by defensive conquest and expulsion of her enemies in the event she is attacked. And between the Shia and the Sunnis, getting attacked shouldn’t be a problem. When they’re not busy hating and killing each other, they hate and want to destroy Israel.

  • truebearing

    Yet another resoundlingly inaccurate assessment of the crisis. Obama was the worst thing that ever happened to this country, or the world. Obama opened Pandora’s Box, and we won’t be able to prevent the world war once Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al. get their nukes.

    You are aware that Obama is going to be the president for three more years, right? That is plenty of time for Iran to acquire enough nukes and missiles to be a serious threat to their own region, and possibly farther. Who is going to stop them? Obama? He’s the one helping them get free of the sanctions.

  • truebearing

    Here is a fact: jihad is religious fanaticism that requires adherents to destroy all who aren’t Muslim.

  • truebearing

    Interesting analysis….myopic, yet ignorant of geopolitical reality.

    OPEC doesn’t need the United States like it once did. It has a bigger market in China, and China is on track to supplant us as the world’s biggest economy. Oh, and they use more oil than we do already. Then there is India, Europe, etc.

  • truebearing

    They’ll sell all the oil they want to China.

  • truebearing

    Texas?

  • truebearing

    Now TP has been bested in a debate by a comic book character. Why am I not surprised?

  • truebearing

    He is a Ron Paul fanatic, but won’t admit it. I recall debating the Paulists on the Daily Caller, and he was one of them… unless there are two Texas Patriots, which is a frightening thing to consider.

  • truebearing

    Maybe you should explain how you can conquer a country, take it over, and expel its people without troops. I’m all ears…and you are all space between the ears.

  • Texas Patriot

    Your reading comprehension problem has to do with the idea that I have ever suggested taking over an entire country. I haven’t suggested that, and I never would suggest that, and in fact, the doctrine of defensive conquest requires nothing of the kind. Rather it is a specific defensive remedy designed to prevent further aggression, and make sure that aggressors understand that there will be consequences to any aggression.

    If, for example, Gazans attack Israel with rockets from an identifiable point in Gaza, Israel may wish to make a point that it will not tolerate such attacks by moving into the area where the rocket attacks originated, seizing the land and expelling all non-Israelis. It may not be very much at all, and there would be no necessity or compulsion to do it. It would always be a matter of whether the acquisition and annexation of the forfeited territory would serve Israel’s overall strategic interests.

    The doctrine of forfeiture and expulsion of aggressors may seem harsh, but sometimes there is no alternative in order to protect the lives of innocent civilians. Therefore, it is clear that the use of the doctrine of defensive conquest should always be available to any sovereign nation to prevent further unprovoked attacks on their citizens.

  • defcon 4

    They have in the past. I’m pretty sure OPEC can still manipulate oil prices pretty easily, and while it might not affect the US much, it could and will affect countries like China, Japan and much of Europe/Eurabia.

  • defcon 4

    Has it been confirmed that Saudi Barbaria made this offer? Because I believe it’s been officially denied — as has been any contact between Israel and their holey islam0fascist kingdom.

  • defcon 4

    Israel hasn’t given back the Golan Heights to Syria has it? Syria used the Golan Ht.s to shell Israeli settlements, then attacked Israel, not once, but twice. Israel owes them nothing except a kick in the face.

  • defcon 4

    I wish Putin would stand with Israel. After all Russian Jews have made significant contributions to both the USSR and Russia. You would think he would have at least some sympathy for them.

  • Texas Patriot

    There may well be another Texas Patriot. As far as i know there could many. But no, I have never debated anything on the Daily Caller, and in fact I have never heard of it. And no, I am not a Ron Paul supporter, although I do concur with some of his ideas, particularly the need for fiscal responsibility and avoiding foreign land wars that are hugely expensive and cannot possibly be won in any meaningful sense. Rather, I’m a cradle Republican born and raised in the tradition of in the tradition of Barry Goldwater, George Patton, and Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Patton said, “I don’t want you to die for your country, instead I want you to help the other guy die for his country.” And Goldwater said, “The object of war is victory.” The truth is that I agree with all of those ideas.

  • ziggy zoggy

    And how will letting them ruin new places help anybody but them?

  • ziggy zoggy

    How are they going to learn that? Convert to Christianity or Buddhism? All 800 million of them? I don’t think you really want them to be dealt with.

  • ziggy zoggy

    Yeah, and Obama is such a simp he wouldn’t embargo them unless Americans got angry enough to openly denounce him and all of his policies. He wouldn’t allow fracking or drilling on public land either, or for refineries to be built.

  • ziggy zoggy

    So which of America’s enemies should be attacked, and how?

  • ziggy zoggy

    Israel couldn’t hold land it took from its neighboring countries, and all the people it had to govern there would be dedicated to destroying Israel demographically. Maybe this is what T.P. wants to happen.

  • ziggy zoggy

    The more Sunni and Shia are separated, the more time they will have for attacking everybody else.

  • Lanna

    Our leaders have taken America in a downward spiral, that’s probably their intention to make us like any other 3rd world country…no wonder other countries are becoming more powerful and taking the leadership position. Russia is another country, who’s leader is more popular than Obama.

  • Lanna

    Our leaders have taken America in a downward spiral, that’s probably their intention to make us like any other 3rd world country…no wonder other countries are becoming more powerful and taking the leadership position. Russia is another country, who’s leader is more popular than Obama.

  • Texas Patriot

    They immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace. Now we know that is not the case. If they are unwilling to renounce the doctrines of Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims, it will be time for them to leave.

  • Texas Patriot

    One way they will learn is through the doctrine of defensive conquest. If they “bother” other people (let’s say by suicide bombings, etc.), they could suffer the consequences of losing their lands and being expelled from them. It won’t happen overnight, but little by little they may get the idea that bothering other people is not a good idea.

  • Texas Patriot

    The only legitimate use of force is for self-defense. In the case of the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, it is a matter of self-defense to prevent the Islamic Revolutionary Party of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by surgical strike that destroys those facilities in place. Otherwise, there is no need to attack anyone unless they threaten to attack you first.

  • Texas Patriot

    The doctrine of defensive conquest does not require the non-aggressor to seize and expel the aggressor from its own lands. But it does permit it in appropriate cases. The option of whether to seize and annex the lands of the aggressor is always an option of the non-aggressor which may be exercised or not according to the best interests of the non-aggressor.

  • Texas Patriot

    Hopefully the Shia and the Sunni will eventually think better of attacking anyone, and if their actions carry the swift and certain consequences of forfeiture of and expulsion from their lands, perhaps they will be less likely to continue their policies of perpetual Islamic jihad, conquest, and submission of non-Muslims. In any event, it is the right of those attacked to take appropriate measures to defend their neighbors and their citizens from violent attack, and the relentless exercise and implementation of the option of defensive conquest is the best way of insuring that.

  • defcon 4

    It’s interesting that Camus saw the Algerian revolt against France as “new Arab imperialism”. Because what is islam, but “Arab imperialism”?

  • TienBing

    Agreed.

  • Omar

    Don’t call Fidel Castro (nor Raul Castro) a “president”. He was a dictator of Cuba. Remember, the Castro brothers are not elected, nor do they ever intend on holding elections because they would lose by a landslide.

  • Max Modine

    Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton….Appropriate, but I prefer Hillary DB “Dodging Bullets” Clinton…..better illustrates her innate, lying nature. Max

  • Max Modine

    Hillary “Reset Button to Benghazi” Clinton….Appropriate, but I prefer Hillary DB “Dodging Bullets” Clinton…..better illustrates her innate, lying nature. Max

  • defcon 4

    For the US to embargo islam0fascist petrocracies wouldn’t make much of a difference to them, because the majority of US oil imports don’t come from islam0fascist states (most US oil imports used to come from Mexico). But most of the rest of the industrialized world is dependent on islam0fascist oil.

  • defcon 4

    I’d be inclined to believe the same thing — if it weren’t for the zero’s support of LGBT rights.

  • defcon 4

    Maybe where the liberal islam0fascist apologists and sympathizers live: Beverly Hills and NYC.

  • BagLady

    Deja vú: “Every time a Black attacks a White, there needs to be an immediately and aggressive response……..”

    What is this “relentless, defensive conquest” you and A-n-other speak of? Don’t sit well together, those words.

    • Texas Patriot

      The concept of relentless defensive conquest describes the appropriate response to relentless offensive attack.

  • BagLady

    What are you saying? First you empty Gaza — a practise run if you like — and then, using the same argument and the newfound expertise, you empty Iran. Do world leaders flock to your country to learn the tactics behind your “Relentless, Defensive Conquest strategy? Then what?

    • Texas Patriot

      I’m saying that after forty years of relentless terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in the West, enough is enough, and if the relentless offensive attacks by Islamic jihadists continue, the West should respond with a strategy of relentless defensive conquest, so that eventually the attacks will either cease altogether, or the jihadists will, bit by bit, lose all of their land. If the jihadists don’t want to lose any more of their land, all they have to do is stop their attacks.

      • defcon 4

        AUS had its first islam0nazi terrorist attack way back when WW1 was still going on. A bunch of Turkish islam0nazis began killing unarmed picnickers and anyone else they could conveniently kill.

    • defcon 4

      Gee, isn’t that exactly what your fellow musloids have been doing — all over the f’ing world, for the last 1000 years?

  • BagLady
    • defcon 4

      Perhaps you need an airtight head bag.

  • Texas Patriot

    I don’t think they would like it here. Texas has never been a friendly environment for Islamic jihad, and I don’t think that’s likely to change.

  • defcon 4

    Yeah let’s all just ignore the genocide and ethnic cleansing being carried out all over the world in the name of islam — because inaction is the moral thing to do.

    • Texas Patriot

      It’s too late to try to stop it offensively. We don’t have the money or the men. It’s gotten too large, and it’s growing too fast in too many places around the world.

      Relentless defensive conquest, confiscation, forfeiture, and expulsion is the only way to deal with the global phenomenon of offensive Islamic jihad which is now spreading like wildfire around the world. The bottom line is that each nation must defend itself first before it can think about defending anyone else.

      Sure, there can be areas of cooperation and joint action with other nations, particularly Russia, China, and India. But most nations will be lucky to be able to deal with the problem within their own borders.

  • JVR

    Daniel, if France is the leader of the free world, then may the gods help us all…