Obama and His "Extraordinary Support" for the Zionists

When Barack Obama stands up and says to the Zionists that the U.S. is “proud to stand with you as your strongest ally and your greatest friend,” the question comes to mind: What is he proud of?

Let us subject his words, despite their simplicity, to an analysis:

– Obama stands with the Zionists. That means he takes their side and falls in line beside them. He is not just pronouncing solidarity: In common logic, he stands with them through good and evil, in times of joy and distress, peace and war. These general statements beg the question: Where exactly do the Zionists stand at the moment so that Obama and the U.S. stand with them? Do they stand for defending their bogus entity,* or are they machinating and plotting to turn the Zionist dream of expanding from the Euphrates to the Nile into reality? Whatever the answer, Obama stands, in the name of the U.S., with them.

– He stands with them as their strongest ally. Here, the word “ally” carries a special, exclusively militaristic meaning. He will be their ally regardless of whether they are on the defensive or offensive. He is not their only ally, but he is the strongest one. That much is certain.

– He stands with them as their greatest friend; friendship means support, but the more important thing is that with the idea of “greatest friend” comes the notion of “friendship in times of hardship.” Thus, he will always provide them with a U.S. cover [for their activities].

In light of these facts, let us look at Obama’s usage of the phrase, “We are proud.”

No doubt, one can only use this phrase to boast of actions when one knows that whoever stands before him will not accuse him of uttering lies. For him, those actions must be significant and a matter of pride.

Here, we do not think that Obama came to Israel to remind the Zionists about the ordinary, commonly known ways in which the U.S. has supported them, including: Continually giving them monetary aid since before the establishment of the Zionist entity up until today; supplying them with the most modern and lethal weapons at U.S. expense; supporting them in all their wars and rushing to assist them whenever the situation calls for it; and resorting to its veto power, time and again, to block U.N. condemnations of Israeli wrongdoings.

These actions do not constitute a personal favor from Obama because he is only following the same approach as all previous American presidents. Even his predecessor, George W. Bush, launched the war and occupation of Iraq in 2003 for the sake of the schemes and calculations of the Zionists. New developments must have occurred during Obama’s presidency itself — developments that allow him to stand before the Zionists and arrogantly boast that he, personally, stands with them as their strongest ally and greatest friend. And those developments certainly do not include the [construction of the] Iron Dome, which has proved its weakness in the face of [Palestinian] resistance rockets in Gaza.

Shimon Peres, president of the Zionist entity, summed up these new developments when he said to Obama, “Your support for Israel is unshakeable. You enabled our security in an extraordinary way …”

With these words, Peres endorsed what Obama was boasting about and identified its essence as:

– Obama’s continuous, unwavering support with money, weapons and political backing. These do not distinguish Obama because his predecessors also provided them.

– Obama’s extraordinary way of supporting the security of the Zionists. This extraordinary way is a new development [during Obama’s era] because, in the past, the U.S. has always supported them through methods considered ordinary by those employing them.

Here, addressing the meaning of the phrase “extraordinary way” is extremely important. An extraordinary way means a new, innovative method for which no similar example can be found in the past. It must also possess some extraordinary value.

We know that “Israeli security,” which Obama always insists on reaffirming as a U.S. commitment, is a loose expression. It does not just mean defending the security and existence of the Zionist entity, as some may think. Rather, it also encompasses the Zionists’ expansionist aspirations and their realization as one of Israel’s security requirements. We can add the plan to redraw the map of the region by fragmenting existing countries and building what is called the “New Middle East” here, as it too is one of the stipulations for Israeli security.

It is common knowledge that Shimon Peres himself, in his book “The New Middle East,” was one of the theorists and advocates of this plan. This means that all of the steps and policies that Washington has undertaken in the Arab homeland for the sake of the “New Middle East” project are not just the embodiment of U.S. policies [sic]: They are also in service to Israel’s so-called security. Here, our saying “in every wedding, he gets a slice of cake” applies. In every event the U.S. orchestrates, there is some reward for Israel.

But for the Zionists, everything that has happened and is happening is one thing, while the Axis of Resistance is something else.* Unless it can defeat and dispose of the Axis of Resistance, all of the U.S.’ other achievements will be practically worthless to the Zionists. Moreover, the continued presence of this axis does not just constitute a solid obstacle to their expansionist dream. They see it as a threat to the survival of this entity. In order to confront this axis, which extends from Iran to Palestine through Syria and Lebanon, Obama had to employ what Peres calls the “extraordinary way” of supporting Zionist security.

We know that the leaders of the Zionist entity have, during the last few years, continually insisted on and demanded some kind of action from Obama against Iran in order to stop its nuclear program. We know that they have pretended, time and again, to run off into striking Iran’s nuclear reactors and pulling the U.S. into a war with the country. Obama is certainly hesitant when faced with such a war or entanglement and its potential effects on U.S. and European economies, especially because the former will not allow for any more billions of dollars to be allocated to war efforts and because it would contradict his promise to American voters not to follow in Bush’s footsteps.

Obama found what he needed in the method of “indirect warfare,” an “extraordinary way” that would allow Washington to meet the demands for Israeli security. Hence, Obama and the Zionists agreed to try to get rid of the Syrian obstacle first, particularly because doing so would guarantee several things:

– With the destruction of Syria’s military power and its fragmentation into small, mutually hostile units, Israel will be able to execute its aggressive, expansionist plan in the region, as long as the other Arab countries, including those it will target, are under U.S. control.

– Given the increasing concentration of terrorist activity in Iraq, it is clear that the country remains in a state of security disarray. Thus, controlling Syria would mean fully sequestering Iran geographically from the front line of the Arab-Zionist conflict. This would reduce Iran’s influence on developments in that conflict, which has been practically resolved on the ground.

Because a direct war on Syria would actually provoke a broader war in the region and perhaps the world, certainly provoking difficult-to-endure strikes on the Zionist entity, the Zionists and their U.S. ally and friend conspired to launch a war against Syria through indirect means. Obama prepared himself and, as their strongest ally, recruited all of his followers around the world — who are now allies of Israel merely because they are subordinate to Washington — to launch the most vicious war on Syria that human history has ever known. This act, along with all that paved way for it, is precisely the “extraordinary way” through which Obama has supported Israel’s security and what entitles him to boast about what he has accomplished in front of the Zionists. But the two sides — the U.S. and the Zionists — prefer exchanging disguised words over openly stating the truth [about their mutual plotting]. Neither Obama nor the Zionists want to reveal the secrets of this dirty war before it is over, lest they influence its proceedings.

It is now certain that Obama came to occupied Palestine to investigate, together with the Zionists, the next step for this war. Truthfully, the question on the table at the moment is whether the time has come to turn the indirect war into a direct war. And, if the time has come, who should take the first step? Should it be Israel? Or should it be NATO through Turkey? The latter option would allow Israel to avoid the risks of the war, as long as it has an ally and friend capable of recruiting subordinate forces to fulfill the roles required of them in a war conducted for Israel’s benefit. In this manner, Israel can lead the war from behind a U.S. curtain.

The answers to questions like these are not easy. The American knows that he is transitioning into a direct war. Regardless of who instigates it, it is difficult, if not impossible, to say for sure that Syria will be taken as though it were being served up on a plate to the Zionist entity. There is a real danger that the war will spread throughout the region and perhaps even beyond it.

There is no doubt that what is occurring represents the peak of Jewish-Zionist deception. And there is no doubt that the question on their table at the moment is: “Do we stop here? Or do take it further? If we keep going, what new instruments can we throw into the war after the ones we were previously using failed to achieve their desired goal?”

Because this is the question at hand, Obama had to begin his tour through the region with a visit to the Zionist entity state so that the next step could be cooked up in the kitchen of Imperialist-Zionist deception. In light of that, Obama is turning to his followers to inform them of their roles in the coming phase. As long as Obama, who walked through the door of the Zionists first, remains their ally and friend and uses an “extraordinary way” to run a comprehensive yet indirect war to support their security and expansionist dreams, any expectation that Washington will favor peace in Syria is, most likely, baseless. That is because the Zionists will definitely not allow peace and because Obama, their ally and friend, will not reject their desire to continue the war and expand it through any means possible. If we take into account that his tour preceded the desert Arab summit in Doha*** — and that one side of the opposition took the step of forming an interim government [in Turkey] under the premiership of Ghassan Hitto before both the tour and summit occurred — it is obvious that the U.S. truly is inclined to persist in the conspiracy and that all expectations to the contrary do not, in reality, have any supporting evidence.

It is inconceivable that Qatar or Turkey would resort to steps like these without approval from their American master. Thus, Obama continues to provide his extraordinary support to the Zionists, and all the agents working in his service to guarantee this support are still ready to do whatever is requested of them, all for Israel’s security. And let us not forget that the sanctions and pressure that have been used and continue to be used against Iran on the pretext of its nuclear program are also just a means of supporting Israel’s security.

*Translator’s note: Opponents of Israel in the Middle East often do not address it by name or as a state because this could imply recognition of its statehood and legitimacy. Instead, they use the term “Zionist entity” as a way of casually pointing out that they do not recognize its right to exist.

**Translator’s note: The author is referring to an alliance between the Syrian regime, Iran and Hezbollah.

***Translator’s note: The author is referring to the 24th Arab League summit in a derogatory manner.