Obama Believes Russia To Be a Greater Threat than Islam

The leader of the free world is dragging us into an economic war — a war without an enemy. Barack Obama has clearly learned nothing from the past.

On paper, U.S. President Barack Obama is the leader of the free world. Almost two months ago, the terrorist organization Islamic State captured a number of strategic locations in Iraq, including the city of Mosul.

Thousands of Kurds and Christians came under threat as a result of these conquests. The Iraqi government asked the United States for help in the fight against the Islamic State. The Americans appropriately offered military support to Iraq, only on the condition of the formation of a broad-based government that would include Sunnis. At the same time, the White House considered utilizing drones against the Islamic State.


It was not long before ISIL was transformed into the Islamic State. A caliphate was declared in Mosul.

In these crucial weeks, the leader of the free world made no move from inside the White House to weaken the Islamic State through air strikes. That was terribly foolish.

Hundreds of Americans live and work in Erbil and other important Kurdish cities — diplomats, military advisers, CIA agents, etc.


Barack Obama has clearly learned nothing from the Benghazi affair, where American diplomats were killed by local members of al-Qaida.

In the meantime, Obama is driving us into an economic war — and not just any war, but one without an enemy. Obama did not choose Islam as the acute threat to the free world, but Russia. The leader of the free world ignored the real enemy — Islamists — and drew us into a conflict with Russia with no end in sight.


We have landed in an economic war with Russia, with no more room for policy and diplomacy. Of course, the recent developments in Russia are extremely worrying.

But this is not the way to develop a policy on Russia. This economic war against Russia may lead to an irrational escalation.

A week ago, the White House received the message that troops belonging to al-Baghdadi, the caliph of the Islamic State, were moving on Erbil — where there are hundreds of Americans at risk of decapitation by the group.

Damage Control

Out of fear — not as a strategic decision — Obama gave the order to bomb the advancing terrorist troops. Apparently, these strikes do not form part of an overall policy on the Middle East.

Obama must now enter damage control mode, and he does this in an interview with the friendly New York Times. Thomas Friedman gets to act as the megaphone to protect his failing president in this presidential drama.

The president said: “Our politics are dysfunctional,” and we should heed the terrible divisions in the Middle East as a “warning to us: Societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions. And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions.”

Political Islam

Are America’s politics dysfunctional because different parties in the Middle East are taking “maximalist positions”? And what does that have to do with the Islamic State? The Islamic State is a fruit of political Islam, just like its mother organization al-Qaida, the Taliban and other branches of Islam.

The West, under pressure from France and Great Britain, took part in the war against the Libyan regime. NATO became the rebels’ air force. Now, Benghazi is being governed by a branch of al-Qaida.

This is what President Obama has to say about that: “I’ll give you an example of a lesson I had to learn that still has ramifications to this day. And that is our participation in the coalition that overthrew Qaddafi in Libya. I absolutely believed that it was the right thing to do … Had we not intervened, it’s likely that Libya would be Syria … And so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction. But what is also true is that I think we and our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you’re going to do this. Then it’s the day after Qaddafi is gone, when everybody is feeling good and everybody is holding up posters saying, ‘Thank you, America.’ At that moment, there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn’t have any civic traditions … So that’s a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question, ‘Should we intervene, militarily? Do we have an answer [for] the day after?’”

The Day After

Obama’s reasoning appears to be that we had to act — otherwise, Libya would have begun to look like Syria. But Mr. President, al-Qaida now runs parts of Libya. What are you going to do about that?

Does Egypt have permission to invade Libya to put things in order? Of course, before the launch of any military intervention, plans must be made for “the day after.” But is that the only reason to intervene with military action?

A Mess

There is a possibility to intervene without America or NATO having to occupy a country. A military intervention can also be assisted by local allies. And “the day after” can simply emerge out of an appropriate change in the balance of power in a region.

This president of America prefers to wage war against an important competitor — namely, Russia — who is not our enemy.

Obama’s mess in the Middle East is the advance of Islam.

About this publication

1 Comment

  1. I don’t agree with everything the author says. About Libya, Ghaddafi was a crank and a dictator but still better than many other dictators. This is not about Islam or Russia but about Petrodollars. And with taking on Russia, USA and its allies have taken on more than they can chew.

Leave a Reply