Obama’s policy is to destroy ISIS, the only threat to Iran’s proxies, Syria and Iraq

What is at stake here is whether the Jihadist Sunnis control Lebanon, Syria and Iraq or the Jihadist Shiites, under Iranian dominance, do. Obama opts for the latter. But what is ignored is that all Jihadists want to destroy the US or that Islam demands that the world submits to it.  Ted Belman

Obama pledges additional support for Iranian puppet regimes

By Clare Lopes, CSP


In a prime time address to the nation on the eve of 11 September 2014, President Obama pledged an expanded U.S. effort to destroy the Islamic State (IS), which he still calls “ISIL” (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant). American air power, stepped-up training for anti-Assad Syrian jihadis (which he calls “moderate rebels”), an additional $25 million in financial aid to Baghdad, and partnership with “a broad coalition” (that currently consists of 9 countries) comprise the key elements of the new military campaign.

Given that the only territory IS currently threatens are the regimes of two Iranian puppets – one in Baghdad, one in Damascus – Obama’s announcement in effect amounts to a renewed U.S. commitment to support Tehran’s grip on regional hegemony. The nuclear talks about how quickly the U.S. will accede to the Iranian bomb resume in another week.

Remarkably, the president opened his remarks with the rather preposterous claim that “ISIL is not Islamic.” Now, Obama himself has admitted in his autobiography “Dreams From My Father” that he “made faces during Quranic studies.” Still, it might be expected that he retained something of those madrassa lessons—or at least that White House advisors (not the Muslim Brotherhood ones, though) would have steered him away from such an egregious misstatement.

As it is, one of the reasons that the Saudi regime is so shaken by the approach of IS forces toward its borders is precisely because Riyadh royals know full well their Islamic piety doesn’t begin to measure up to the purity of IS practice. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS leader, not only boasts a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies from a Baghdad university, but wears the black turban to signify descent from Muhammad. Whether entitled to claim the Islamic prophet’s bloodline or not, al-Baghdadi models his every action on the example Muslims believe set out for them centuries ago by the founder of their faith. For Muslim purists like al-Baghdadi, the Qur’anic verse 33:21 that tells them “Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day…” is taken quite literally (amputations, beheading, crucifixions, flogging and all).

Obama rambled on, claiming next that “ISIL is certainly not a state.” Unfortunately for the Iranian proxies in Baghdad and Damascus that are his intended beneficiaries, it is their former states that no longer exist—because the Islamic State, the Caliphate, has dismantled them. Obama did seem to recognize the effective erasure of the 1916 Sykes-Picot borders at least in some measure, though, as he declared his intent to expand U.S. air strikes more evenly throughout the Caliphate (including into what used to be called Syria as well as the former Iraq).

Apparently in pursuit of a public relations coup that’s eluded him of late, Obama nevertheless offered up additional glimpses of his unenviable conundrum about which jihadis to support on the ground in the intra-Islamic sectarian struggle that’s torn the region apart since the Islamic Uprising began in 2011.

For example, he seems to have conveniently forgotten that the ranks of today’s IS are full of Syrian jihadis armed, funded, and trained by U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) in cooperation with the now-terrified Hashemites, NATO ally Turkey, Muslim Brotherhood sponsor Qatar, and the flailing Saudi monarchy. A monster has slipped the leash but the American president says he’s more than ready to provide even more support to more Syrian rebels, who, this time, definitely will be exclusively the ‘moderate’ ones.

But what about the threat to the homeland if IS is allowed to exist and consolidate? Well, the question somehow is never asked about how either individual jihadis or small jihadi cells that an IS enclave might direct to attack the homeland are in any way different than the jihadis the Iranian or the Saudi state have launched our way over the decades—to include the hijackers of September 11, 2001 or the uncounted numbers of Hizballah cells operating across the Americas today. But there’s never been a hint of a suggestion that those jihadist sponsoring states constitute a compelling national security threat to the U.S. that requires an international coalition to deal with them.

The real issue has to do with America’s failure to acknowledge that Jihad War has been declared against us and is being fought by an entire axis of Islamic forces ranging from individual jihadis (like Maj. Nidal Hassan), to sub-national terrorist organizations (like al-Qaeda), to Muslim nation states (like Iran)—and now the new Caliphate. IS even spells out in clear and simple language how it intends to draw the West back into the killing fields of the Middle East; but Obama’s studied refusal to acknowledge or confront the thoroughly Islamic character of the new Islamic State would seem to indicate either that he continues to miss his daily intelligence briefs—or possibly that no one has the temerity to explain al-Baghdadi’s End Times eschatology to him.

As described in the slick, English-language online magazine that IS calls “Dabiq,” the final battles (the Malahim) must take place against the “crusader” forces in and near the land of al-Sham (Greater Syria). For this to happen, there have to be “crusader” forces in al-Sham for the Caliphate to fight. The American president, even as he denies the Islamic spirit that animates and infuses the IS forces, is being prodded (in part by frightened public sentiment) into helping to fulfill the ultimate Islamic End Times scenario.

Talk about multitasking: at one and the same time, Obama will not admit that Islamic forces once again are on the march across the Middle East and North Africa – but yet he aids and abets their rise to power. The Shi’ite-dominated heartland of the Middle East has been designated for Iranian hegemony: this includes Iran itself, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (held by Hizballah, the Iranian terror proxy), and perhaps one day even the Shi’ite-populated east coast of Saudi Arabia.

Refusing to lift a finger to support the brave Iranian people who took to the streets in 2009 by the millions to demand their liberty, but springing to the attack against the Islamic State (because it threatens Baghdad and Damascus) is of a pattern for this president—who also was quick to ensure that al-Qaeda militias received all the weapons they needed to overthrow the ‘unfaithful Arab ruler’ (meaning non-shariah-adherent) Qaddafi in Libya in 2011 – because North Africa is for the Sunnis.

With his latest pledge of U.S. alliance and assistance to most anyone who will take on the IS threat to Iran’s sphere of influence, Obama has stepped onto a slippery slope. America has already lost over 4,000 of its bravest and finest with tens of thousands more injured in Iraq since 2003—many of those on the receiving end of an Iranian-made IED. Our national leadership has never held either Iran or Saudi Arabia to account for their roles in the attacks of 9/11.

How much more will the U.S. sacrifice to defend shariah and jihad?

September 13, 2014 | 5 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. Obama will do as little as he can get away with regarding ISIS which just means that the next US President will have to deal with these ISIS butchers! I personally expect little or nothing from Obama, indeed, I expect he will drag his little feet just as long as he can regarding ISIS and Obama hopes that he will be out of office before he really has to do something about ISIS instead of beating up Israel and disrespecting our Prime Minister Netanyahu!

  2. dweller Said:

    Our abandonment created a power vacuum and ISIS has moved to fill it. (They may be scumbags, but their leadership is quite rational.)

    Same with Syria. Had Obama moved with dispatch to aid the early opponents of Assad, he could have prevented jihadi types from gaining a foothold there. But BHO had campaigned in ’08 on a promise to “end” — not win — the war.

    Correctamundo! All of it – give the man a cigar. He left the Syrian Rebels with no other option but to join ISIS and Al Nusra, as the USA abandoned everyone.

    I heard today that a major Sunni Group in Iraq (2 million strong) that had assisted ISIS now wants to switch sides again and fight ISIS with the US now that the USA is back in play. It’s nothing to do with being “Jihadist” – they just want to be on the winning side in order to survive.

    He made the enemy strong by refusing to fight them, refusing to be involved. He put his head up his behind , like all leftists and refused to look outside – and still not changed. He probably thinks he can fight this war with a few propaganda efforts without getting his boots dirty.

  3. @ ArnoldHarris:

    “Iranians think and say that ISIS was created by he USA for purpose of knocking out Assad’s Shi’a-oriented Syrian government. I agree with the Iranian claim. But I think the evidence shows that the USA accomplished that through stupidity and ignorance rather than by purposeful design.”

    Yes. After reversing the tide in Iraq thru the Surge, we have forsaken all the gains made, despite all the losses those gains had cost. We pulled up stakes in Iraq without leaving the still as-yet very shaky govt any means of sustaining itself. We denied them the vital intel & logistical support they needed. Our abandonment created a power vacuum and ISIS has moved to fill it. (They may be scumbags, but their leadership is quite rational.)

    Same with Syria. Had Obama moved with dispatch to aid the early opponents of Assad, he could have prevented jihadi types from gaining a foothold there. But BHO had campaigned in ’08 on a promise to “end” — not win — the war. Keeping his base happy was all he cared about. In a very real sense, ISIS is his creation.

  4. Not every revolutionary group or individual fighting against Assad is jihadist. To think so is either hysterical or hate-mongering, it is not realistic or knowledgeable.
    All the US spokesmen on CNN today looked like very confused individuals – including Obama – they all came across as incredibly wishy-washy. It’s a war but they can’t call it a war so as not to offend the leftists. It’s a war against Islam but they can’t say that because they will offend their Islamic (murderous Islamic ) allies and the Muslim base in America.
    The administration is effectively paralyzed.

    Just 30 minutes exposure to CNN on this subject and you can know that Islamic Militarism will increase 1,000 fold in the next few years.
    A great damage is being done from inaction.

  5. 1) Obama in particular and the USA in general will not destroy ISIS. According a recent issue of the New York Times, Iranians think and say that ISIS was created by he USA for purpose of knocking out Assad’s Shi’a-oriented Syrian government. I agree with the Iranian claim. But I think the evidence shows that the USA accomplished that through stupidity and ignorance rather than by purposeful design. In any case, ISIS is a concept of Islamic governance, rather than a state, and air strikes will not succeed in destroying that concept.

    2) It is increasingly evident that the USA, in responding to ISIS provocations, will muster few if any allies from the Middle East or even the safer havens of Western civilization still remaining in Europe. Turkey, for example, knows that ISIS has taken a number of Turkish hostages. They will be ceremoniously beheaded the day Turkey commits itself to the American struggle against ISIS. Turkey, by the way, is as Sun’a and the populations attracted to ISIS and its hoped-for 21st century revival of the Sun’a caliphate of Damascus and Baghdad which the Mongols destroyed in 1265.

    3) The next major target of ISIS will be the Emirate of Trans-Jordan and it’s “king”, who looks like, acts like, and is, an Englishman of the British public school aristocracy. (Lots of luck to you, old boy. You and your family will end the same way as “King” Feisal of Iraq, who made the mistake of being in Baghdad the night one of his generals found himself in control of the only armed force in Baghdad that particular night of July 1958.

    Arnold Harris
    Mount Horeb WI