“As the only person to have won the Nobel Peace Prize on the basis of sheer hope rather than actual achievement, Obama could be expected to do everything within his power to vindicate this unprecedented show of trust. Instead, he continues to preside over a clueless foreign policy that has not only exacerbated ongoing regional conflicts but made the world a far more dangerous place.” Efraim Karsh
While Obama’s leadership mistakes are far too numerous to go into, it is safe to say his lack of any foreign policy has left the Middle East in a state of anarchy and civil war, over-run with terrorists. Bassam Tawil, a Middle East Scholar says Obama’s “comic-book fantasies and unworkable, starry-eyed demand’s has led to a “final dissolution” of most of the Arab states. “ His concept of resolving conflicts by surrendering has stripped the U.S. of all deterrence and sucked the Middle East into an ocean of blood.”
In his adolescent worldview, idealizing Iran, is nothing more than a daydream. In fact his nuclear deal with Iran has not only left them with the opportunity to legitimately pursue their nuclear weapons program but removed all sanctions allowing a return of the $100 billion they need to further fund terrorists activities in the region and against the U.S. A deal, which I might add, also had the added bonus of pushing the Saudi government toward the outstretched hands of the Russian bear. Read Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy at this link.
Is he simply that inept or does he have a plan? It is a well- known fact that Obama sees the U.S. as an evil empire that exerts too much influence on the outside world, an evil empire of greedy corporations, an overly powerful military-industrial complex, a yahoo nationalism, engrained racism, and cultural imperialism, a nation to be taken down to size.
His hatred of the United States leads him to believe that as an evil empire, the U.S. must morally compensate for its errors. His mission, as Obama sees it, is to “guide American into a new era, into ObamaWorld, a utopian world more attuned to the nuances, complexities, contradictions and opportunities of the 21st century.
As he told the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, “Our destiny of shared power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation….No balance of power among nations will hold.” The new United States, under the leadership of our supreme messiah, was to seek common solutions to the world’s problems by resetting relations with Russia, by embarking on a policy of “strategic reassurance” with China and in general to seek a “new area of engagement” based on mutual respect. He then called on world leaders to help bring about a nuclear weapons-free world, to increase security from terrorists and promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, to tackle climate change and to create more economic opportunity.
For an Administration that prides itself on its pragmatism, there would seem to be a great deal of wishful thinking in this approach. Neither the President nor his advisers acknowledge that, along with common interests, the great powers also have divergent and sometimes directly conflicting interests that cannot necessarily be reconciled through better understanding.
The great question ahead is how, in their wisdom, the American people will judge the Obama Doctrine when they vote in November. Will they repudiate his policy of shuffling and apologies or will they choose 4 more years of the same under Hillary Clinton, thereby turning the Obama Doctrine into the new norm and Americans into a European-style remorseful masochists?
“Obama promised that if he were elected president he would “remake” the world. He has and now America is paying the price.” Peter Wehner