Obama veers left
The perils ahead
By Caroline B. Glick
US President-elect Barack Obama has properly sought to maintain a low profile in foreign affairs in this transition period ahead of his January inauguration. But while Obama has stipulated that the US can have only one president at a time, his aides and advisors are signaling that he intends to move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current trajectory once he assumes office. And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most immediately and directly to US policy towards the Middle East.
[..] What is most disturbing about Obama’s emerging foreign policy is not simply that it ignores the reality on the ground — a reality which clearly demonstrates that Iran and its Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese surrogates are implacable foes of Israel and America and therefore not interested in being appeased. It is also not just the fact that it sends a signal of American weakness to Iran and its proxies just as Iran reaches the nuclear threshold. And Obama’s emerging foreign policy is not merely disconcerting because by speaking with Iran and its proxies, Obama will be legitimizing the genocidal regime in Teheran.
What is most alarming about Obama’s emerging foreign policy towards Iran and its proxies on the one hand and Israel on the other hand is that it will cause actual harm to Israel. By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama’s apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its expanding ballistic missile arsenal. By embracing the Syrian regime in spite of its support for terrorism, its nuclear proliferation activities and its subversion of Lebanon, the incoming Obama administration will embolden Syria to increase its subversion of Lebanon and Iraq, while strengthening its ties to Iran still further. [..]
CONTINUE
Nicholas Lemann laid out the difference between Obama and McCain’s world views as it impacts foreign policy in the Politics issue of The New Yorker before the election. No media echo.
As much as I respect Caroline Glick’s insights, 1) hard to imagine Israel becomes #1 priority in U.S. economic meltdown, 2) ignores Saudi/Iraqi/Egypt/Turkey/Pakistani fears of nuclear Iran, 3) hard to really believe Shi’a Iran is supporting Taliban who consider Shi’a heretics. Afghanistan’s minority are the Hazara, descended from the Mongols, and Hazara are Shi’a. The Taliban was on the verge of Hazara genocide by 2001. Nuclear Pakistan actually shares a border with Iran. Nuclear India is already in a huff over Obama’s offer to ’solve’ Kashmir.
Still, hope Schumer, Cardin, Wexler, and Wasserman-Schulz, et al are schvitzing 24/7.
Comment by Birdalone — November 14, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Sheep on the right, goats on the left.
Comment by Michael Sunstar — November 14, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
I still don’t understand exactly what the form of this pressure would be. Can anyone explain? Once you have closed the valve on the pressure vessel, and possibly locked it, the pressure inside that vessel is fully contained…
Comment by keelie — November 15, 2008 @ 10:32 am
Perhaps the greatest problem with Obama is that he is making it clear that he will not defend Israel if it is attacked. Israel is now completely on its own to defend itself and its neighbours know it.
Comment by Jonathan — November 16, 2008 @ 6:55 am
That’s an interesting comment, Jonathan. So far, Barak Obama hasn’t demonstrated much competence in foreign policy. He really doesn’t seem to have a viable plan. Anyone who thinks “Middle East Peace” can be achieved by any deal between Israel and the Arabs has a hole in his head. There simply is no basis for any such deal: The Arabs will be committed to the anihilation of Israel, until they are forced, militarily, to give up and shut up; and I do not think God will allow Israel to settle for anything less than fully occupying and fully utilizing the land he clearly allotted to them (which includes Lebanon and southern Syria, as well as Israel & Gaza). The only internationally-recognized basis for Israel’s existence is the Bible, and the Bible sets those boundaries: It’s a matter of everything or nothing, literally. The Arabs understand this, but the Jews, as usual, do not; and neither Obama nor any leader can impose any other solution other than a “hudna”.
The bottom line, is that Obama thinks he can accomplish something in Israel that no leader before him has been able to accomplish, and that none of the parties involved will ever accept. In plain English, he’s a dreamer, out of touch with reality. If someone doesn’t sit him down quickly and tell him the facts of life, he will be so busy putting out fires around the world a year from now, he will not be able either to help or hurt Israel or anyone else. Israel will be on its own, just as it was in 1967 — a time, as you may recall, that the Amercian President had his hands tied, domestically and abroad, by the bungled adventure in Vietnam.
1967 was a good year for Israel. Maybe we’ll see a repeat.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — November 16, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
A captured bank robber after being caught was asked why he robbed banks. He replied”that’s where the mony is”
Since America is broke and is surviving on borrowed money , the logical question is from whom are they borrowing? Then what is the quid pro quo? Now if a major lender just happens to be the Saudi and Gulf states the quid might be pushing the Saudi Plan or Arab League plan down Israels throats. That might place Israel at the top of Obamas agenda.
Comment by yamit82 — November 17, 2008 @ 3:14 pm