On Monday, The Jerusalem Post published an important op-ed titled Unmasking the real Obama Doctrine. The article was written by David Parsons, the director of media and public relations of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.
In the article, Parsons enumerated Obama’s blunders in the Middle East and explored what is driving the president and where Obama is trying to steer the course of world affairs:
Obama’s regional score card is one of unmatched ineptitude. His withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were predictably premature, risking all the American capital and blood invested there. Libya was liberated from a ruthless dictator only to descend into tribal and jihadi chaos. He has overlooked every anti-Western antic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, while bullying Israel and berating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at every turn.
In Egypt, he threw loyal ally president Hosni Mubarak under the bus in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and then cut off aid to Cairo when the masses demanded the overthrow of his successor, Mohamed Morsi.
The Saudis watched in shock and are looking for support elsewhere. In Syria, he has dithered between toppling President Bashar Assad for using chemical agents against his own people and preserving his regime as a bulwark against the brutalities of Islamic State (IS). He boasted of Yemen as a model for fighting terror only to see it overrun by a radical proxy militia of Iran. And he has bent over backwards to placate Tehran in pursuit of an elusive deal that is most assuredly setting off a nuclear arms race in a Middle East already in flames.
In short, Obama has alienated allies and coddled enemies all the while chasing some goal that has yet to be clearly identified.
Parsons then analyzed Obama’s motivation for appeasing the ayatollahs, while estranging and even endangering traditional American allies in the region:
My own take is that Obama is indeed motivated in part by a leftist worldview but also by a religious outlook that is best described as Chrislam. This is an emerging theological viewpoint which sees both Christianity and Islam as equal paths to God and equally valid sources of moral precepts, and Obama has developed his own unique brand of it.
“I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” Obama said in 2009.
So not just a policy but a presidential duty to defend Islam! And in carrying out this new duty, Obama not only has repeatedly defended Islam as a morally equal faith but also has used those occasions to point out flaws in Christianity. And while past Christian generations did err in brandishing the sword in the Crusades and in using the New Testament to try to justify the enslavement of black Africans, this president has gone so far as to actually question the moral integrity of certain Christian scriptures. In doing so, he has crossed a line that no Christian should countenance.
Obama’s inclination to shield Islam from criticism runs so deep, he even feels compelled to pronounce who is a Muslim and who is not.
Parsons then arrived at the heart of Obama’s real agenda:
I would submit that Obama’s enduring cultural identity with Islam and concern for its perception and welfare has motivated him even to hope for the healing of its deepest rift – the centuries-old bitter schism between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam.
This would mean that Obama saw his rise to the Oval Office as a unique opportunity to try to set into motion a process which would lead to a repair of the historic breach between Sunni and Shi’ite Islam, largely as a means to stabilize the notoriously volatile Middle East.
His chosen Sunni partner for this venture was the Muslim Brotherhood and his Shi’ite partner was none other than Iran. If successful, the two sides would have mutually defined their respective spheres of influence and worked toward a more peaceful regional configuration. It is just that events have overtaken him, Obama’s strategy is in shambles, and he has been taking a lot of his frustrations out on Israel, and especially Benjamin Netanyahu.
Parsons also cited Yehuda Avner – adviser of four Israeli prime ministers – who offered up a valuable insight into Obama, straight out of one of his biographies.
In one chapter, Obama recalls his days as a community organizer in south Chicago and his tactics for resolving violent flare-ups on the streets. He first sought to identify the worst thug among the various gang leaders and go to him first in a bid to bring him over to the good side. You threaten him a little, you massage his ego, you offer him something, and you slowly restore calm, all the while ignoring the other parties involved.
This insight alone goes a long way towards explaining Obama’s six years of careful engagement with Iran and his benign neglect of those regional allies most threatened by Tehran’s renegade nuclear program.
It also explains why Obama hid crucial information on shipments of components for long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads to Iran by North Korea during the current negotiations with Iran.
Advertisement - story continues below
U.S. officials, who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on condition of anonymity, said more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by the U.S. going from North Korea to Iran since last September.
President Obama was given details of the shipments in his daily intelligence briefings, but the officials say the information was hidden from the UN by the White House so that it would not take action on the sanctions violations.
A wave of experts came out with criticism against the administration for hiding the missile part transfer from the UN.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton said the shipments violated UN sanctions on Iran, as well as those imposed on North Korea back in 2009. “If the violation was suppressed within the U.S. government, it would be only too typical of decades of practice,” Bolton said. “Sadly, it would also foreshadow how hard it would be to get honest reports made public once Iran starts violating any deal.”
Advertisement - story continues below
Former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz shared his assessment, saying, “while it may seem outrageous that the Obama administration would look the other way on missile shipments from North Korea to Iran during the Iran nuclear talks, it doesn’t surprise me at all.”
“Iran’s ballistic missile program has been deliberately left out of the talks even though these missiles are being developed as nuclear weapon delivery systems,” noted Fleitz. “Since the administration has overlooked this long list of belligerent and illegal Iranian behavior during the Iran talks, it’s no surprise it ignored missile shipments to Iran from North Korea.”