U.S. middle Eastern policy

The collapse of the Obama Administration’s policy towards the Islamic world is in abundant evidence. The extent of the Administration’s mistakes is staggering, and the ramifications are global.

Whatever opinion one may have had of the war that deposed Saddam Hussein, President Obama’s decision to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, a nation that was struggling but nevertheless slowly moving towards stability and democracy has proven disastrous. The vacuum that was created allowed ISIS to rise to great power.

In turn, the White House’s subsequent failure to bring sufficient strength to bear against ISIS, either through American airpower or through providing the heavy weaponry needed by the Kurds to do the job, allowed Iran and Russia to extend their influence throughout the Middle East. For the first time, Russian forces, in alliance with the terrible regimes in Iran, the key supporter of global terrorism, and Syria, a nation whose government commits massive atrocities against its own people and has caused the worst refugee crisis since World War II, hold the balance of power in the region.

The belief that Russian, Iranian, and Syrian forces will at least counter ISIS may be mistaken as well. Iran’s key goal, which it has followed for decades, is to extend its influence. It is far more interested in establishing a dominating military influence in nearby nations than in combatting ISIS. Similarly, the major priority Syrian forces follow are is eliminating rebel forces opposing their regime.

And then, of course, there is Russia, which already has a naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus, and seeks to greatly expand its influence in one of the planet’s most strategic areas. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, (commander of U.S. European Command and supreme allied commander, Europe) noted that Russia’s presence is being watched “with concern.”

This turn of events has been made even more complete by Obama’s alienation of Israel, his inexplicable support for the rise of Egyptian elements that are tied to the Moslem Brotherhood, (a turn of events later undone from within that nation) and his bizarre military adventure in Libya which replaced an anti-terrorist regime with a weak government that has allowed that country to become a growing stronghold for al Qaeda.

Practice the pill with water & online prescriptions for cialis shun taking it with booze or grapefruit juice. The cialis online erect state of penile organ remains strong for 4 to 6 hours, without producing any complexities. There was no viagra online for sale solution to tackle this problem in the end. You can place an online order by specifying the buy generic viagra quantity and quality of the sperms or if they are suffering from the Problem of Erectile dysfunction. The refusal to take any action in response to Syria’s crossing “the red line” in its possession of unlawful weaponry, the lack of any military action in response to the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, and the terms of the Iran nuclear deal which allows that nation to eventually possess atomic arms has signaled the region that the United States is no longer a force to be feared.

In another part of the Islamic world, a similar scenario is taking place. The President, similar to his Iraq mistake, announced a departure date for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. As a consequence, the Taliban, which provided support for the 9/11/01 attack that devastated New York and the Pentagon, is returning to power. The most recent example: on September 28, Taliban forces overran the provincial capital of Kunduz in the northern part of the nation. This is the first loss of a provincial capital since American forces entered Afghanistan in 2001. Kunduz is a strategic transportation center for the entire region. (Airstrikes have been made in an attempt to retake the city.)

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following statement Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following statement

“News reports that the Taliban has retaken Kunduz are discouraging, but not unexpected. President Obama’s failure to fully resource his strategy for Afghanistan forces our troops and their leaders to focus on meeting next year’s withdrawal deadline, rather than America’s security needs. The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban is not unlike the fall of Iraqi provinces to ISIL—it is a reaffirmation that precipitous withdrawal leaves key allies and territory vulnerable to the very terrorists we’ve fought so long to defeat.”

In an interview with The Hill, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, noted that President Obama’s Middle East foreign policy is “failing on every single measurement…Russian aggression in the region may eventually force the Obama administration to take military action.”

Despite the extensively negative results of his policies, there is little indication that the President is ready for a change in course.

As it becomes evident that the Iranian nuclear talks will be extended, after 18 months of negotiations, yet again beyond a deadline, the entire Obama/Clinton strategy towards the Middle East must be called into question. The Obama Administration’s policies in the region have completely failed, and it’s unwillingness to provide reasonable explanations of both its tactics and goals must be called into question.

Whatever the current White House’s opinions of the war fought to vanquish Saddam Hussein’s reign over Iraq, the premature withdrawal of U.S. forces from that nation by President Obama opened up a power vacuum that has been filled by ISIS. Why were there no contingency plans to deal with this very obvious outcome?

If President Obama had, as a key goal, the avoidance of armed conflict in the Middle East and the removal of the U.S. military, why did he commit U.S. armed forces to play a key role in the ouster of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi? Gaddafi had renounced and disbanded his nuclear program, and broken his ties to terrorists. He was on the same side as the West in opposing al Qaeda. That decision clearly indicates to Iran that there is no benefit in siding with the U.S. on nuclear disarmament and opposing terrorism.

The result of the President’s decision was a clear victory for terrorists in the region. That opens up the next issue. Why was an attack mounted on the American facility in Benghazi, and why did both the Obama White House and the Clinton State Department work so vigorously to mislead the public about an unknown video being the cause? Why were air, sea, and land forces prohibited from mounting a rescue attempt? According to discussions by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government with experienced retired military personnel, the allegations that no American forces were within range is completely false. Why have relevant documents not been released, and relevant personnel not been allowed to testify?

Similarly, why did the White House side with the radical and violent Muslim Brotherhood against the pro-peace, U.S.-friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak? When the Muslim Brotherhood took power and began committing atrocities, why did President Obama remain silent—until the Muslim Brotherhood was in turn ousted, and the White House then decided to protest that ouster?

Further south in Africa, the Boko Haram, a terrorist organization now affiliated with ISIS, has been noted for some time for its atrocities, particularly against young women. Despite its obvious and well-known reputation, the White House and the Clinton State Department avoided placing the organization on the terrorist list. Why? And, in the wake of revelations regarding a potential financial incentive for Ms. Clinton to fail to be truthful regarding Boko Haram, why hasn’t the White House acted?

Why didn’t the White House act in a timely manner to assist the anti-terrorist leadership in Yemen, when it had clear and abundant warnings of the threat against the government there?

Why did the Obama Administration ignore its own “Red Line” with Syria?

Why has the Obama Administration gone out of its way to publicly castigate the Israelis, who are our most dependable ally in the region?

The questions about Iran, arguably the leading anti-American power in the region, are the most central to the inquiries about the Obama Administrations’ goals and practices. The regime in Tehran is vehemently and militantly anti-U.S., evidenced by instances of its government officials repeatedly chanting “Death to America” and its military practicing assaults on U.S. naval assets.

According to the Clarion Project:
Thus hardening occurs with increase in penile length among certain human beings is mainly attributed to genetic factors, which is again controlled to a large extent on the physical relationship between the couples. cialis pills wholesale We have to believe that a great percentage of patients receiving spinal manipulation have been relieved from generic viagra purchase pain and the recurrence of pain was lessened. However, in the present generation, the younger generation too are consuming the pill to enhance their sexual intimacy. cialis 20 mg Some of the generic medicines that are made with that exact the same ingredient are branded as Kamagra, Silagra, and Kamagra oral jelly, Caverta, Zenegra, Zenegra, http://greyandgrey.com/history/ generic levitra, and Forzest etc.
“Iran has been on the State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terrorism since 1984. Its 2013 Country Reports on Terrorism states that Iran is supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, the Syrian regime (also labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism), Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militants in Bahrain and Shiite militias in Iraq.5 The State Department confirmed that Iran continues to work with Al-Qaeda elements, despite their expressed hostility towards one another. It stated: ‘Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaeda (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody. Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saq al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria. . Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years. Al-Fadhli began working with the Iranbased AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities. He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.’

“ Iran operates a global network, including in the U.S. and South America. In May 2013, a 500 page report by an Argentine state prosecutor said Iran has an “intelligence and terrorist network” in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Colombia, Guyana, Trinidad, Tobago and Suriname and elsewhere.6 The State Department also said Iran increased its presence in Africa. Iran is also known to work closely with North Korea on weapons of mass destruction programs. The IRGC is believed to have a presence in Sudan (another State Sponsor of Terrorism), where it oversees a supply route to Hamas.”

Despite all that, the President Obama’s policies towards Iran have been apparently intentionally weak and ineffective:

When the “Green Revolution” opposed the extremist Tehran regime, it was one of the only “Arab Spring” movements not supported by the White House.

The White House has softened its stance on sanctions against Tehran.

There has been no significant White House response to Iranian and Iranian-backed forces moving into Latin America.

Secretary of State Clinton facilitated the transfer of uranium to Russia while Moscow was assisting Iran’s nuclear program

American air strikes against ISIS have been miniscule compared to past U.S. efforts against other aggressors, as Washington has allowed Iranian forces to achieve Tehran’s long-sought after goal of expanding its power in Iraq under the excuse of fighting that force.

The White House has allowed deadlines to be breached in nuclear talks with Iran, allowing that nation vital time to actually achieve the ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The White House owes the American people and Congress an immediate, clear and thorough explanation of its Middle Eastern goals and practices.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.