Rocking Obama’s world

By Caroline B. Glick, Jewish World Review

Crises are exploding throughout the world. And the leader of the free world is making things worse.

On the Korean peninsula, North Korea just upended eight years of State Department obfuscation by showing a team of US nuclear scientists its collection of thousands of state of the art centrifuges installed in their Yongbyon nuclear reactor.

And just to top off the show, as Stephen Bosworth, US President Barack Obama’s point man on North Korea was busily arguing that this revelation is not a crisis, the North fired an unprovoked artillery barrage at South Korea, demonstrating that actually, it is a crisis. But the Obama administration remains unmoved. On Tuesday Defense Secretary Robert Gates thanked his South Korean counterpart Kim Tae-young for showing “restraint.” Thursday, Kim resigned in disgrace for that restraint.

The US has spoken strongly of not allowing North Korea’s aggression to go unanswered. But in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt North Korea back to feckless multilateral disarmament talks that will go nowhere because China supports North Korean armament. Contrary to what Obama and his advisors claim, China does not share the US’s interest in denuclearizing North Korea.

Consequently, Beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal.

Then there is Iran. The now inarguable fact that Pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferators in Pyongyang are involved in Iran’s uranium based nuclear weapons program. Obviously the North Koreans don’t care that the UN Security Council placed sanctions on Iran. And their presumptive role in Iran’s nuclear weapons program exposes the idiocy of the concept that these sanctions can block Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal.

Every day as the regimes in Pyongyang and Teheran escalate their aggression and confrontational stances it becomes more and more clear that the only way to neutralize the threats they pose to international security is to overthrow them. At least in the case of Iran, it is also clear that the prospects for regime change have never been better.

Iran’s regime is in trouble. Since the fraudulent presidential elections 18 months ago the regime has moved ferociously against its domestic foes. But dissent has only grown. And as popular resentment towards the regime has grown, the likes of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme dictator Ali Khamenei and their Revolutionary Guards have become terrified of their own people. They have imprisoned rappers and outlawed Western music. They have purged their schoolbooks of Persian history. Everything that smacks of anything non-Islamic is viewed as a threat.

Members of the regime are so frightened by the public that this week several members of parliament tried to begin impeachment
proceedings against Ahmadinejad. Apparently they hope that ousting him will be sufficient to end the public’s call for revolutionary change.
But Khamenei is standing by his man. And the impeachment proceedings have ended as quickly as they began.

The policy implications of all of this are clear. The US should destroy Iran’s nuclear installations and help the Iranian people overthrow the regime. But the Obama administration will have none of it.

Earlier this month Gates said “If it’s a military solution, as far as I’m concerned, it will bring together a divided nation.”

So in his view, the Iranian people who risk death to defy the regime every day, the Iranian people who revile Ahmadinejad as “the chimpanzee,” and call for Khamenei’s death from their rooftops every evening will rally around the chimp and the dictator if the US or Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear installations.

Due to this thinking, as far as the Obama administration is concerned the US should stick to its failed sanctions policy and continue its failed attempts to cut a nuclear deal with the mullahs.

As Michael Ledeen noted last week at Pajamas Media, this boilerplate assertion, backed by no evidence whatsoever is what passes for strategic wisdom in Washington as Iran completes its nuclear project. And this US refusal to understand the policy implications of popular rejection of the regime is what brings State Department wise men and women to the conclusion that the US has no dog in this fight. As State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley told the Wall Street Journal this week, the parliament’s bid to impeach Ahmadinejad was nothing more than the product of “rivalries within the Iranian government.”

Then there is Lebanon. Since Ahmadinejad’s visit last month, it is obvious that Iran is now the ruler of Lebanon and that it exerts its authority over the country through its Hizbullah proxy. Hizbullah’s open threats to overthrow Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s government if its role in assassinating his father in 2005 is officially acknowledged just make this tragic reality more undeniable. And yet, the Obama administration continues to deny that Iran controls Lebanon.

A month after Ahmadinejad’s visit, Obama convinced the lame duck Congress to lift its hold on $100 million in US military assistance to the Hizbullah-dominated Lebanese military. And the US convinced Israel to relinquish the northern half of the border town Rajar to UN forces despite the fact that the UN forces are at Hizbullah’s mercy.

In the midst of all these crises, Obama has maintained faith with his two central foreign policy goals: forcing Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and scaling back the US nuclear arsenal with an eye towards unilateral disarmament. That is, as the forces of mayhem and war escalate their threats and aggression, Obama’s central goals remain weakening the US’s most powerful regional ally in the Middle East and rendering the US incompetent to deter or defeat rapidly proliferating rogue states that are at war with the US and its allies.

Having said that, the truth is that in advancing these goals, Obama is not out of step with his predecessors. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both enacted drastic cuts in the US conventional and nonconventional arsenals. Clinton and George W. Bush adopted appeasement policies towards North Korea. Indeed, Pyongyang owes its nuclear arsenal to both presidents’ desire to be deceived and do nothing.

Moreover, North Korea’s ability to proliferate nuclear weapons to the likes of Iran, Syria and Venezuela owes in large part to then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice’s insistence that Israel say nothing about North Korea’s nuclear ties to Iran and Syria in the wake of Israel’s destruction of the North Korean built and Iranian financed nuclear reactor in Syria in September 2007.

As for Iran, Obama’s attempt to appease the regime is little different from his predecessors’ policies. The Bush administration refused to confront the fact that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are Iranian proxy wars to a large degree. The Bush administration refused to acknowledge that Syria and Hizbullah are run by Teheran and that the 2006 war against Israel was nothing more than an expansion of the proxy wars Iran is running in Iraq and Afghanistan.

November 26, 2010 | 8 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. Obama can’t do anything by himself. He has all the other countries to consider, the UN, especially China. Any decisions made are going to have to be made as a group. The leader of North Korea is crazy. Tough to deal with.

  2. @Bert, Many will agree with your summary of Obama – he does know EXACTLY what he is doing and America cannot wait until 2012 to prevent him from the collision course he is on to destroy Israel (and America). The word “Impeachment” is being talked about more since the elections two weeks ago. One Senator plans to question the Obama administration’s support of the Palestinians, including Gaza/Hamas, and the military training by the U.S. and Dayton’s boys. What I do not understand is why Israel’s leaders give Obama the “time of day”, when they must be aware of the majority of Americans attempts to prevent Obama from doing more damage – this just doesn’t make sense is makes it difficult for supporters of Israel to speak up for Israel, while PM Netanyahu says, “Things are great between the U.S. and Israel”. Conflicting messages cause more confusion!

    I would like to think beginning January, that the “one” in deep trouble will be Obama.

  3. Obama’s actions are forcing more people to think the unthinkable about him. Namely that he knows EXACTLY what he is doing and that he is really a jihadist at heart and intends to destroy Israel and bring down America. He knows that more and more people are waking up and that he must move as fast as possible to do as much damage as possible before he is stopped. Much of the damage he has already done in under two years is irreversible. Waiting for the 2012 election means two more years of Obama with rule by executive order and infinitely more damage. We are all in very deep trouble.

  4. I notice that I wrote my previous post too hurriedly, and left out a key element: Obama has let down our Korean and Japanese allies, big time; and because North Korea will continue its provocations because it can do so scot-free, our relationship with our two paper allies can only deteriorate. Japan is bound by its constitution, to make a treaty with no country other than the US, and to have no military — only a “self-defense” force. If the US continues to be a non-ally, however, these countries, who border a powerful potential enemy in Communist China, must look elsewhere for military equipment and support. India, which borders Japan’s vital shipping lane to the Mideast and also is free of American and other foreign entanglements, is a good choice: It is also isolated and threatened by Pakistan, a US/Chinese ally, and has close military ties with strategically-placed Israel and Singapore (both of whom are also bordered by Moslem states like Pakistan). Moreover, every member of this Korea-Japan-Singapore-India-Israel group has technological and intelligence expertise to offer the other members. Even without amending its constitution, Japan has projected its considerable military force in one place: The Middle East, to combat Somali pirates. The other parties to this alliance all share this common danger.

    In the absence of a strong America that knows what it stands for, geographically- and economically-favored alliances such as the above are quite possible. Britain and France already broke ground last month, forming a ground-breaking alliance between them that does not include the US and other NATO countries. When the Soviet Union threatened everyone, the current alliances were taken for granted, especially by the US. Nowadays, it would be wise for the American President to nurture these relationships; but he has not shown such wisdom.

  5. Honestly, I don’t see ANY foreign policy rattling around in Obama’s head. Putting pressure on Israel is the only assertive thing he’s done since becoming President. The only good that might come of this, is that the Japanese might amend their constitution, re-arm and ally themselves with Korea, Singapore, India and Israel (thus controlling vital shipping routes from Vladivostok to the Mediterranean). That’s a long shot; but then, Obama has shown a tremendous capacity for the buffoonery that can propel this sort of thing.

    Under Obama, the US has been disgraced; but not completely — there are two years left yet.