NIU.S President Barack Obama has defended his 2013 decision not to intervene militarily in Syria’s civil war in his interview in the Atlantic.

He has blamed everyone except himself. His list of scapegoats included UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan.

Obama said that he was “very proud” of his decision not to take military action and breaking with conventional foreign policy wisdom, something he called the “Washington playbook.”

In the interview, Obama stood firmly by his decision to avoid ordering a strike against  Bashar al-Assad’s chemical weapon infrastructure despite having declared the previous year that the use of such weapons would cross a “red line.” Assad used chemical weapons and poisonous gases no less than 35 times according to official sources.

According to Washington sources Obama was afraid action against the Syrian regime would alienate Iran and derail the nuclear talks. A Washington insider said in August last year that President Obama has rendered himself impotent by listening to pro-Tehran advisors.

The decision not to strike stunned U.S. allies and closest advisors. Secretary of State John Kerry told friends he “got f**ked over” according to the article.

Some might argue that Kerry should have resigned. He was left without leverage whilst negotiating with Russia. Obama

Obama also accused Middle East countries particularly Saudi Arabia of being “Free Riders”. In response Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud former Ambassador to the USA wrote a scathing article in the Asharq Al-awsat this week slamming Obama’s accusations – “We are not “free riders Mr. President… We shared with you our intelligence that prevented deadly terrorist attacks on America.”

“We initiated the meetings that led to the coalition that is fighting ISIS, and we train and fund the Syrian freedom fighters, who fight the biggest terrorist, Bashar Assad and the other terrorists, Al-Nusrah and ISIS. We offered boots on the ground to make that coalition more effective in eliminating the terrorists”.

More bluntly Turki asked whether Obama had “pivoted to Iran so much you equate the kingdom’s 80 years of constant friendship with America to an Iranian leadership that continues to describe America as the biggest enemy, that continues to arm, fund and support sectarian militias in the Arab and Muslim world.”

Interestingly a CNN/ORC Poll early March found that a strong majority, 58%, say Obama has failed in “making the country safer.” 60% say he has failed to “improve America’s image around the world.” Two-thirds of voters say he has failed to “handle ISIS.”

Obama has not solidified a legacy as an effective global statesman. He squandered the opportunities afforded to him over the last eight years to make a real difference.

Arab journalists as far back as 2013 were asking how could such an intelligent President, who won a second term have accomplished so little in international affairs.

In the summer of 2009 his eloquent and idealistic speech to the Arab world at Cairo University elevated expectations for action with clear and principled American leadership. Almost eight years later, to the disappointment of many, the Obama administrations’ Middle East strategy has proven to be short-sighted, incoherent and contradictory.

In the Middle East and even in Europe Obama is perceived as a dithering president. Writing in the Daily Telegraph in January Charles Krauthammer listed some of the most flagrant failures. “In October 2015, Iran test-fired a nuclear capable ballistic missile in violation of Security Council resolutions. Obama did nothing.”

Iran flagThis month Iran’s military tested two ballistic missiles. Again President Obama has not done anything.

The Iranian nuclear agreement, reached last July was hailed by the administration as a landmark deal making the world a safer place. It is supposed to allow U.N. inspectors to press for visits to Iran’s military sites. Iran was allowed self-inspection and declared itself clean.  The Obama administration lifted sanctions, empowered Iran with over $100 billion of frozen funds, and access to world financial markets. This effectively aligned the US against its allies and broader American interests in the region.

In his 2011 speech at Fort Bragg about withdrawal from Iraq Obama said the US would leave behind “a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people.” Events since proved him wrong. Iraq has witnessed sectarian violence, suicide-bombs and mass murder. Ex-Prime Minister Maliki was a disaster, a corrupt bully who implemented divisive policies at the behest of Iran. His sectarianism backfired dramatically in 2014 when the Iraqi military disintegrated as ISIS attacked Mosul. Obama failed to stand up to Maliki. Iran removed him and replaced him with Haider al-Abadi.

Many analysts believe Iran was the winner. The US negotiating team had been the weakest link giving away more and more concessions whilst the Iranian team remained firm. The Iranians were aware that both President Obama and John Kerry were desperate to sign. Last June news leaked that Obama had written letters to Iranian President Rouhani virtually begging him to sign a deal.

The Iranian leaders celebrated by announcing that the world super powers had acknowledged Iran’s right to become a nuclear power. Obama’s pro-Iran advisors told him that such rhetoric was for local consumption.

In Syria the Obama administration had effectively handed the agenda to Putin and Iran. Obama and Kerry are seen by the world as appeasers of Iran and Russia. Obama Betrayed his allies to appease the Mullahs of Iran



7 Comments on "Obama’s Betrayal And Iran’s Mullahs"

  1. mahatmacoatmabag | 20th March 2016 at 12:13 pm | Reply

    Nehad, very neatly summed up. The Obama presidency has been about deconstructing America from the leader of the free world into a third world socialist state, in that he has made considerable progress as he has in destroying the trust allies around the world have placed in America since WW2. Valerie Jarrett is no doubt proud of the success of her pro-Iran influence over the administrations foreign policy. Mercifully Obama will be gone by this time next year but if Clinton is elected president I am not sure that the current US foreign policy of stabbing friends in the back & rewarding Americas enemies will alter much so I am crossing my fingers & hoping for either Cruz or Trump in the White House and a return to America being America & not the peoples welfare republic of Mellow Yellow

  2. The problem in this debate is the Arab monarchies and dictatorships which have leaned towards America since the Cold War have never been true allies they were clients. How many Saudi troops taught in Korea, or Vietnam, or Afghanistan or even in Iraq?

    During the Cold War the US intervened spaingly in the Middle East with the dual positions of easing out the British and French and keeping out the Soviets. With increase in supply of oil at home and reduction in price worldwide US interests in the Mid-East are simply not as important as they were.

    Opposing Iran gaining nuclear weapons is in the worldwide interests of all the great powers. However local issues of the level of influence between Tehran and Riyadh in Baghdad no one really caress, as long as they continue to sell oil.

  3. Thanks mahatmacoatmabag and I do share your misgivings about Clinton but I don’t think she will be as stupid as Obama. Appeasing Iran is Obama’s top priority and I don’t think Mrs. Clinton has such an obsession.
    As for the Republican candidates I think Ted Cruz is the better choice. He is less divisive and more pragmatic than Trump.

  4. Dominic Shelmerdine | 20th March 2016 at 6:41 pm | Reply

    Bravo, Nehad!
    Mr Ismail hits it right on the nail…

    Barack Obama is a major disappointment as America’s first coloured/black president and has failed to live up to expectations and has proven to be Iran’s mullahs best friend. He and John Kerry are quite unsuited to high office, and Syria’s dictator Assad has nothing to fear from Washington’s paper tiger.

    A potential Trump presidency seems to be one to be reckoned with. Even Hillary Clinton would be a major improvement on Obama.

    Nehad’s insightful observastions and comments can be relied upon.
    Hopefully, America’s current presidential candidates can read this article.

  5. US credibility is well lost. It has proved over the years that it is the least reluable ally, better to be allies with Russia and Iran

  6. How naive of Obama and his administration to think they can be allies with the Islamic Republic. From Supreme Leader’s speech made only yesterday:
    “”Not only did the Islamic Republic liberate Iran from the claws of the
    Americans but also with the spirit of resistance that it showed and
    with the courage it displayed, which I will talk about later,
    encouraged other countries too. Today you see in many countries in
    this region and even beyond, they chant Death to America and burn US

  7. Interesting Siamak. Obama’s pro Tehran advisers will tell him such stuff is only for local consumption and is not an official foreign policy statement.

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please consider if you're contributing to the discussion before you post. Abuse and general negativity will not be allowed to appear on the site. This might be the Internet but let's try to keep things civil.

Your email address will not be published.