It Is Obama's Fault!

Since 2009, America’s security has been imperil due to the feckless nature of Obama and much of his foreign policy team, including John Kerry and his predecessor, Hillary Clinton. America is less safe today than when Obama took his first oath of office, and the fault lies with Obama. There is no blaming Bush, no matter how hard Obama and his supporters within the punditry class and media will tell you, “It is Bush’s fault.”

Truth one, Obama inherited a stable Iraq and when he pulled American troops out in 2011, what happened was predicted by many including George Bush, who proved to be a prophet. The reality is that America was the power broker that all sides believed in. Iraq and Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki dealt with the Shiites militia in 2009, those Militia are now working with Iraqi army in Tikrit, the same militia that is under the control of Iran. The rise of ISIS can be traced to the American Iraqi disengagement. The removal of American troops in 2011 eliminated the one force that would have stopped ISIS in its track, even at the recommended size of 20,000. Obama’s refusal to act against Syria when it was found that Assad used chemicals against his enemy, gave a signal to all of the bad guys in the region that they had nothing to fear. This bluff was called by Syria’s Assad but all sides understood that Obama’s led America was a paper tiger and ISIS’s move into Iraq was an extension of this weakness. As Colonel Ralph Peters recently noted, Obama simply refuses to learn and his negotiations with Iranian are nothing more than accepting Iran as a nuclear power. To pretend that the negotiations are leading anywhere else would be naïve of Obama.

Another lie is that the recent letter from Tom Cotton and 46 other Senators to the Ayatollahs was something not seen and it fails to take into account the Democrats’ attempt to undermine past Republicans. This is not the first time the Democrats have tried to undermine the Republicans. Our present Secretary of State visited Managua, Nicaragua in 1985 with former Senator Tom Harkin while they both opposed Reagan’s Central American policy. John Kerry’s fellow Massachusetts senator, the late Ted Kennedy, wrote to Soviet leaders stating not to work with Reagan and to wait until a Democratic win in 1984 for a better nuclear arms deal. Can we forget Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria and how many folks were aware that there was a story that never denied that Obama contacted Iranian leaders during the 2008 election to not deal with Bush but to wait until he was elected? If true, maybe we can charge the President with treason, because remember, no one has ever denied this story. Considering that Obama promised the Russians on a hot mic during the 2012 elections that “he would have more flexibility after the election,” believing that Obama could contact the Iranians and make the same promise is not a far stretch.

If nothing else, Cotton has given Obama and his Secretary of State the leverage needed to pressure the Iranians into a better deal that is being discussed now. There is no evidence that he is taking advantage of the cover the Republicans are giving him. From the opening of his administration, Obama has attempted rapprochement with Iranians including doing nothing for the protestors in the street who marched against the present Iranian government in 2009.

Where are we with this administration? Iran is the strongest force in the region, with their Syrian satellites set in place. Hezbollah is entrenched in Lebanon, and Hamas is essentially an arm of Iran. Iraq is becoming an Iranian satellite and Yemen is now being added to part of the Iranian sphere. By looking at a map you can see the pieces on the chessboard. Yemen and Shiite Iraq out flank Saudi Arabia and Israel is flanked by Assad’s Syria. Lebanon and Hamas run Gaza Strip. This Iranian hegemony is a direct result of Obama policy and it has set off alarms throughout the region.

Why would the present Iraqi government cooperate with Iran? The answer is easy; the United States made it clear it was leaving Iraq and the Iraqi leaders simply understood that they had better make a deal with the new regional superpower. After the Munich conference gave the Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938, the French alliances, with many smaller countries surrounding the Germany’s western and southern flanks, evaporated as many of these small countries left their alliance with France and made their deal with the Germans. Weaker nations will ally themselves with stronger powers in order to survive.

The other aspect is that part of what kept nuclear proliferation in check was America’s own nuclear umbrella. As long as our allies and friends understood we would protect them, there was no need to go nuclear but now America’s guarantees are no longer trustworthy and many nations may rethink their own nuclear strategy. The Saudis have already made it clear they may decide to go nuclear and establish their own Sunni alliance in the region, including Egypt, Jordan, and nuclear power Pakistan, another Sunni power. If you are Japan or South Korea, how long will it take before you decide that having your own nuclear device is a necessity for survival?

Obama has now opened the door to the spread of nuclear weapons simply because of the distrust of America’s promise. The present Middle East disaster is the result of the policies of Obama, and is supported by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. No more blaming George Bush. It is Obama's fault.