-Second of two part series-
By Steven Kramer
It’s pretty obvious that President Obama has led the American retreat from its lofty status as the world’s only superpower to an attitude of non-participation in any situation which may endanger American soldiers. However, isn’t it the army’s role to protect the homeland from dangers abroad and not shrink from threats? Obama has done a good job of convincing Americans that retreating from entangling agreements with “friendly” Arab countries and Israel is preferable to confrontation with Iran. The recently signed agreement with Iran has enabled both America’s retreat and Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.
Both the State Department and Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush share the responsibility for turning America towards isolationism. Consider America’s recent history under Bush:
* 2nd invasion of Iraq didn’t end after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein
* Invasion of Afghanistan had no chance of success, proven by Russia’s defeat there in 1991
Under Obama:
* Mass demonstrations in Iran ignored; an opportunity missed (2009)
* Courting of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, an Islamist
* Denigration of Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu
* Abandonment of staunch Egyptian ally, President Mubarak
* Failure to support Western-oriented revolutionaries in Syria (2011)
* Support of Muslim Brotherhood overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt
* Failure to support army rule in Egypt after popular rebellion against Muslim Brotherhood
* Failure to safeguard the American ambassador in Libya or to place blame for lack thereof
* Failure to enforce a declared “red line” against chemical weapon use in Syria
* Welcoming of Iran’s charm offensive by Iran’s wily new president, Hassan Rouhani
* Disregard of security concerns of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Shia Arab states in Obama’s rush to sign an “interim” agreement with Iran
While America appears to be forfeiting its superpower status, vacuums are naturally occurring in different regions. They will be filled. An appropriate example is the Middle East, where Russian President Putin is filling the gap. The Mediterranean is becoming a “Russian lake” and Egypt is exiting the American orbit and drawing closer to the Russian one. Putin has also become the power broker in Syria, a sign of the times, while Obama “leads” from behind.
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was legitimized by the recent accord on chemical weapons, suggested by Russia’s Putin and quickly approved by Obama. Assad is barred from using chemical weapons but has been given a pass on other murderous methods, barely slowing the carnage. Similarly, Iran’s autocratic government has been legitimized as a partner for peace by the West.
The Pax Americana, the peace that is supposed to be established in the world by the power of the US, is receding. Whether this is good or bad for America, Israel, and the Middle East remains to be seen.
Editor in chief of the Times of Israel, David Horowitz, writes that, “Until Sunday [November 24], the international community was telling Iran: You want sanctions relief? Then tell us the truth about your nuclear weapons program and start dismantling it. As of Sunday, the international community is telling Iran: We’re giving you limited sanctions relief, and we want you to start telling us the truth about your nuclear weapons program further on down the road.”
Horowitz’s prediction: “It’s not going to work. The US has let Iran off the hook.… the Iranians will not be spending the next six months dutifully preparing to take the IAEA on a tour of all the facilities they have been lying about — dutifully detailing the bomb-making activities they carried out here, the explosives-testing they undertook there — en route to the dutiful dismantling of their entire military nuclear enterprise. They won’t be shamefacedly throwing open the doors to Parchin [missile engine plant]. They won’t be providing the full story of what they’ve been up to at Fordo — the underground enrichment facility that, for Emily Landau, an expert on nuclear proliferation at Tel Aviv University’s INSS think tank, constitutes clear evidence of Iran’s military program.”
Horowitz continued: “Instead, the Iranians can be utterly relied upon to spend the next six months, and a whole lot longer, arguing over the terms of the interim deal, pushing their own interpretations of what’s been agreed, while seeking every means to further ease the economic pressure they’re under. As Landau notes, the seeds of years of potential disagreement have already been sown in that there doesn’t even appear to be an agreed text of the interim deal; Iran and the White House have released different versions, with significant differences.”
In its editorial of November 29, the Washington Post said: “What the White House didn’t report is that the text of the accord makes several major concessions to Tehran on the terms of a planned second-stage agreement. Though White House officials and Secretary of State John F. Kerry repeatedly said that Iran’s assertion of a ‘right to enrich’ uranium would not be recognized in an interim deal, the text says the ‘comprehensive solution’ will ‘involve a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters.’ In other words, the United States and its partners have already agreed that Iranian enrichment activity will continue indefinitely. In contrast, a long-standing U.S. demand that an underground enrichment facility be closed is not mentioned.”
Good luck to all of us in avoiding the consequences of a nuclear-weaponized Iran…
*
This article as well as Part One of this series were previously published by the Jewish Times of South Jersey. Author Steven Kramer’s works may also be read on the website, www.encounteringisrael.com