Obama at the UN: New Policy or Same Old Mistakes?
U.S. President Barack Obama reintroduced his New Middle East vision during his September 25, 2013 speech at the U.N. General Assembly: “Let me take this opportunity to outline what has been the U.S. policy toward the Middle East and North Africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency. …” Obama clarified that his Middle East policy has not fluctuated since his 2008 presidential campaign and his June 2009 Cairo University speech to the Muslim world, notwithstanding the unprecedented geo-political transfiguration of the Arab street during his two terms.
According to Obama, “The world is more stable than it was five years ago.” However, Iraq’s civilian death toll in July 2013 was almost 1,000 — the highest monthly toll since 2008. Egypt has deteriorated from a leadership role in the Arab world into its most unstable period in modern history. Syria, historically an Arab powerhouse has become a battleground among the rogue/terrorist regimes of Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaida. Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and disgruntled Palestinians and Bedouins are awaiting the “Syrian lava,” which threatens to sweep the pro-U.S. Hashemite regime. Libya has been transformed from a rogue dictatorship to tribal anarchy and a chief proliferator of military systems to Islamic terrorists. Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist takeover. Yemen features tribal, religious and ideological terrorism, involving U.S. troops and posing a clear and present danger to the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman, the pro-U.S. oil producers, are panicky in view of intensified internal and external lethal threats.
Obama stated that “America’s diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict … a major source of instability. Resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace. … Real breakthroughs on Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli-Palestinian peace would have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.” However, the Arab Tsunami, engulfing the entire Middle East and North Africa, is totally independent of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, which constitute relative tumbleweeds compared with the Middle East sandstorms that threaten vital U.S. interests.
How could the resolution of the 100 year old Arab-Israeli conflict facilitate the resolution of the totally unrelated 1,400-year-old intractable intra-Arab/Muslim conflicts that agitate the imploding Arab street? Moreover, Arab policymakers do not consider the Palestinian issue a crown jewel. They shower the Palestinians with rhetoric, but not with financial or military resources. Furthermore, Arab leaders view the Palestinians as a potentially subversive, destabilizing and treacherous element, based on the Palestine Liberation Organization’s destructive track record in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait. Therefore, Palestinian leaders receive red carpet treatment in Western capitals, but are welcomed by shabby rugs in Arab capitals.
Obama introduced a linkage between Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Palestinian issue, aimed at pressuring Israel into further concessions, lest it be blamed for the failure to stop Iran’s nuclearization. However, Iran is galloping toward nuclear capabilities irrespective of Israel’s existence or the Palestinian issue, which is a sideshow for Iran and the Arab countries. Iran’s nuclearization aims to advance its 1,400-year-old goal to dominate the Persian Gulf, where Israel plays no role. A nuclear Iran could severely intimidate the U.S., the mega-obstacle in the way of attaining its historical goal. It would provide a robust tailwind to a chief threat to U.S. interests: Islamic terrorism globally and on the U.S. mainland, which was absent from Obama’s speech. A nuclear Iran would devastate the Saudi and other pro-U.S. Persian Gulf regimes, who dread the “linkage theory,” which subordinates the critical campaign against Iran to the highly complicated, but significantly less critical, Palestinian issue. It thus delays a military pre-emption against Iran, providing the ayatollahs more time to acquire nuclear capabilities.
According to Obama, “President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” But, Rouhani derives his mandate/power from Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei, who selected him via a fixed election process. Rouhani demonstrated his “taqiyya” (Islam-sanctioned deception) capabilities during his term as Iran’s chief negotiator with the International Atomic Energy Agency, systematically violating commitments made to the IAEA. In September 2002, Rouhani stated: “When we sign international treaties, it means that we are not pursuing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.” An ally of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba and a supporter of Islamic terror organizations, he was an early ally of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the 1979 Iranian Revolution. He served as national security advisor to Presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, and was a planner of the 1994 terrorist attack on the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, in which 85 civilians were murdered.
Obama presented a supposed moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians. But is there really a moral equivalence between Israel — the only stable, predictable, effective, reliable, democratic and unconditional ally of the U.S. in the seismic Middle East — and the Palestinians, who sided with the Nazis, the Communist Bloc, Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden and are currently linked to Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela?! A moral equivalence between Israel — the role model for counterterrorism — and the Palestinian Authority/PLO, the role model of international terrorism, hate education and incitement?!
Twenty years ago, President Shimon Peres introduced the Oslo process with the vision of a peace-driven New Middle East. However, the increasingly tectonic, violent, intolerant, terroristic, unpredictable, treacherous, Islamist and anti-American, conflict-ridden Middle East has overwhelmed the new Middle East. It produced unprecedented Palestinian terrorism, noncompliance and hate education, radicalizing Arab expectations, further eroding the prospects for peace. Will Obama learn from recent history by avoiding — or repeating — the devastating errors committed by Peres?
This article was originally published by Israel Hayom.