Obama the Tightrope Walker: A Lion with Syria, but a Lamb with Iran
Who knows how to explain in English the concept of “cerchiobottista,” one who in the hunt is both the chased hare and the pursuing hounds, so President Obama can adequately describe the speech he gave yesterday at the United Nations General Assembly?
Everybody was expecting such a speech, particularly when Obama had announced that following numerous errors and misunderstandings, U.S. policy in the Middle East would be redefined.
It was an important speech because as we speak, nobody is more decisive than the United States in confronting mass terrorism and the so-called "charm offensive" of the ever-smiling new Iranian President Rouhani. But Obama introduced just one innovation when, at several points in his speech, he mentioned that he is determined to defend American interests in the world, even suggesting that he might also be prepared to take military action.
He said it four times — in a sufficiently clear manner — that he would be willing to take military action, while referring to strategic (against a nuclear Iran), humanitarian and also energy interests. This is the part when he was running with the hares. The part when he hunted with the hounds was the whole tribute to peace and diplomacy. Although, for example, he had embraced the possibility of military action in Syria after sarin gas was used, he eventually credited the Russians for making it possible to take a diplomatic approach. However, as far as running with the hares goes, the matter is not over and Obama could change his mind if Assad is not sufficiently serious about turning over his chemical weapons. Sometimes the U.N. can be paralyzed, but we’re not worried about a unilateral attack. However, Obama quickly insisted that this time the Security Council must promise collective action if the agreements are not followed.
Regarding Iran, Obama really pulled an “Obama”: soft and subdued by an inexorable ethnocentric vision that does not suggest to him the lawfulness of the Islamic falsehood for its own people and its own God.*
This way, the president has paved the way for a diplomatic path with Iran that did not exist until now: He has announced that he entrusted John Kerry to converse with his Iranian counterpart and that he has sympathy for the people that elected a leader like Rouhani. But he completely put aside the fact that, whether Shiite or Sunni, every Islamist looks with admiration — although coupled with a little hatred — upon the global terrorism perpetrated by Iran, upon its Hezbollah militias and upon aid to Syria. Unfortunately for the political prisoners, imprisoned journalists, hanged homosexuals and women condemned to Shariah punishments for not segregating themselves enough, Obama has said that he does not intend to change the regime.
Regarding nuclear weapons, against all historical evidence that shows us that the Iranians have often pretended to negotiate in order to buy time and despite the fact that it’s now a matter of months [before Iran has nuclear capability], Obama has expressed the hope that the novelty of Rouhani may open a new avenue to global stability. Soon after, he did some big talking: In establishing America's priorities with all his exclamations about human rights, with his concern about al-Qaida's terrorist war, he also placed stopping the bomb on the same level as the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, for the sake of stability and for American interests.
Are you serious, Mr. President? You have Syria, where dozens of people are still being killed every day; Kenya, where terrorists have killed dozens of people recently; Iraq, where about 5,000 Iraqis died this year in a terrorist clash between Shiites and Sunnis; Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan, where the deaths of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks trace the lines of a real war over borders, ethnicity, religion, natural resources, over which terrorist attack is the 'best' and which one is the most effective for aggression against the West. There is a flood of refugees, children have no childhood, women are segregated, all laws on civil and military behavior are being violated, the borders of nation-states that were drawn in 1916 have been deleted and yet Obama thinks that the origin of the Middle East’s instability lies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Iran and Israel together as global issues certainly are an example of a Nobel Prize-worthy act of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Coincidence?
*Translator’s note: The author is referring to the legality in Islam of lying for the greater good or if it will have a positive impact. In this case, Iran's new president might be lying to the West about his moderate stance and his wish to negotiate on the nuclear issue. That way, if the West falls for his alleged lies, economic sanctions on Iran may be removed, which is going to benefit Iran, as its economic situation is dire.
Everybody was expecting such a speech, particularly when Obama had announced that following numerous errors and misunderstandings, U.S. policy in the Middle East would be redefined.
It was an important speech because as we speak, nobody is more decisive than the United States in confronting mass terrorism and the so-called "charm offensive" of the ever-smiling new Iranian President Rouhani. But Obama introduced just one innovation when, at several points in his speech, he mentioned that he is determined to defend American interests in the world, even suggesting that he might also be prepared to take military action.
He said it four times — in a sufficiently clear manner — that he would be willing to take military action, while referring to strategic (against a nuclear Iran), humanitarian and also energy interests. This is the part when he was running with the hares. The part when he hunted with the hounds was the whole tribute to peace and diplomacy. Although, for example, he had embraced the possibility of military action in Syria after sarin gas was used, he eventually credited the Russians for making it possible to take a diplomatic approach. However, as far as running with the hares goes, the matter is not over and Obama could change his mind if Assad is not sufficiently serious about turning over his chemical weapons. Sometimes the U.N. can be paralyzed, but we’re not worried about a unilateral attack. However, Obama quickly insisted that this time the Security Council must promise collective action if the agreements are not followed.
Regarding Iran, Obama really pulled an “Obama”: soft and subdued by an inexorable ethnocentric vision that does not suggest to him the lawfulness of the Islamic falsehood for its own people and its own God.*
This way, the president has paved the way for a diplomatic path with Iran that did not exist until now: He has announced that he entrusted John Kerry to converse with his Iranian counterpart and that he has sympathy for the people that elected a leader like Rouhani. But he completely put aside the fact that, whether Shiite or Sunni, every Islamist looks with admiration — although coupled with a little hatred — upon the global terrorism perpetrated by Iran, upon its Hezbollah militias and upon aid to Syria. Unfortunately for the political prisoners, imprisoned journalists, hanged homosexuals and women condemned to Shariah punishments for not segregating themselves enough, Obama has said that he does not intend to change the regime.
Regarding nuclear weapons, against all historical evidence that shows us that the Iranians have often pretended to negotiate in order to buy time and despite the fact that it’s now a matter of months [before Iran has nuclear capability], Obama has expressed the hope that the novelty of Rouhani may open a new avenue to global stability. Soon after, he did some big talking: In establishing America's priorities with all his exclamations about human rights, with his concern about al-Qaida's terrorist war, he also placed stopping the bomb on the same level as the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, for the sake of stability and for American interests.
Are you serious, Mr. President? You have Syria, where dozens of people are still being killed every day; Kenya, where terrorists have killed dozens of people recently; Iraq, where about 5,000 Iraqis died this year in a terrorist clash between Shiites and Sunnis; Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan, where the deaths of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks trace the lines of a real war over borders, ethnicity, religion, natural resources, over which terrorist attack is the 'best' and which one is the most effective for aggression against the West. There is a flood of refugees, children have no childhood, women are segregated, all laws on civil and military behavior are being violated, the borders of nation-states that were drawn in 1916 have been deleted and yet Obama thinks that the origin of the Middle East’s instability lies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Iran and Israel together as global issues certainly are an example of a Nobel Prize-worthy act of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Coincidence?
*Translator’s note: The author is referring to the legality in Islam of lying for the greater good or if it will have a positive impact. In this case, Iran's new president might be lying to the West about his moderate stance and his wish to negotiate on the nuclear issue. That way, if the West falls for his alleged lies, economic sanctions on Iran may be removed, which is going to benefit Iran, as its economic situation is dire.
Previous article![]( "Consul Clifford Hart's Remarks Were Malevolent, Not Conciliatory")
