I'm still waiting for your answer . . . Sorry, time's up.
Although a bit longer than most of her columns and intended to describe the escalating tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Maureen Dowd does not once mention Israel. How can this be? The cornerstone of Obama's Middle East policy has always been that Israel is the source of all tension in this region. Guess what? Obama and his ultra left foreign policy team, consisting of Samantha Power and friends, have been proven dead wrong.
Enmity and jealousy between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia are destined to provoke the next Middle East conflagration. Unbeknownst to many, their proxies have been fighting for years in Yemen (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/11/middle-east-war-in-yemen-goes-unnoticed.html).
The Saudis have never cared whether Israel possessed atomic weapons. Iran, however, is another matter. If Iran is permitted by Obama to continue to build a nuclear arsenal, the Saudis will seek the same weaponry (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran).
Those who read my blog probably noticed by silence concerning the deal which enabled Gilad Shalit to return from captivity in Gaza. My guess is that fearing a forthcoming conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Israel needed to free Shalit as quickly as possible before some unfortunate turn of events might have shocked the collective Israeli psyche. My guess is also that Saudi Arabia is now offering Israeli warplanes flyover rights, should Israel decide to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
So what is Obama doing about this potential war that could set the global economy back even further? Obama is again in campaign mode, notwithstanding Iran's plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justice/iran-saudi-plot/index.html), Iran's threat to sink US carriers (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/07/ap-iran-to-target-us-carriers-if-attacked-070911/), and Iran's warning to deploy warships off America's East Coast (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/10356471/iran-says-could-deploy-navy-near-u-s-coast-report/).
And who has been encharged by the US to deal with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who on Saturday claimed that the US "has become weaker and weaker" and is "hated in the region" (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/)? Answer: Her Hideousness, Catherine Ashton, the Baroness of Upholland, who serves as the EU's high representative for foreign affairs (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/10/catherine-ashton-managing-talks-for-us.html). Re Ashton, in case you may have forgotten:
• Before assuming her EU position, Ashton was almost entirely lacking in foreign affairs experience.
• A former chairwoman of the Health Authority in Hertfordshire, she has never held elected office.
• Ashton has a BSc degree in sociology and has a life-sized Dalek (a fictional race of extraterrestrial mutants from the British science fiction television series "Doctor Who") in her sitting room.
• Ashton served as national treasurer in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which is suspected of having received funding from the Soviet Union.
• Ashton enjoyed a relationship with a hard-line communist tied to some of Britain’s most militant union leaders.
However, Ashton's hostility to Israel is akin to that of Samantha Power.
Will Obama finally do something more concrete in order to prevent Iran from building atomic weapons? Probably not. Although Obama has learned that his outreach program to that country has flopped, his most pressing current concern is not foreign policy or the economy, but reelection. If not reelected, he will be pleased to pass the problem of containing a nuclear Iran to his successor.
No comments:
Post a Comment