Final Destination

Spread the love

Loading

Richard Fernandez:

The death by burning of Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh at the hands of ISIS [1] takes place amid the widening conflict between Sunni and the Shi’ite interests in the Middle East. On the one hand, as Michael Weiss and Michael Pregent of the Daily Beast [2] point out,  Tehran has made it impossible for the Obama administration to take a ‘clean shot’ at ISIS by promoting ethnic cleansing the Sunni in areas they influence,  thus letting the Islamic state cast itself as the “protector” of the Sunnis in that situation.  Unlike the Bush administration, which actually spent the majority of its military effort in the last days of the Iraq war fighting Tehran’s militias, president Obama has decided to try and become Iran’s friend rather than fighting it.  David Rothkop of Foreign Policy [3] writes:

It is quite possible that, by the time Obama leaves office, no other country on Earth will have gained quite so much as Iran. … Iran would gain stature. Iran would have a better seat in the councils of nations. Iran would gain economic benefits. And Iran’s enemies would be furious.

If the president thinks a brief drop-by in Saudi Arabia is going to somehow offset the House of Saud’s fury at an Iran deal, he’s not paying attention. …

Iran is the one country in the Middle East that seems to be racking up material gains as a result of the unrest that has beset the region. The Houthi coup in Yemen has brought an Iranian-backed Shiite group to power — at least, in a large part of that country. Baghdad is now more directly dependent on Tehran than ever before; Iran is providing a substantial number of the ground troops fighting the Islamic State and protecting Shiite Iraq from the terrorist fighters. Even in Syria, Iran’s ally Bashar al-Assad has been receiving a steady stream of signals that Washington is increasingly willing to let him remain in place. Meanwhile, Hezbollah remains strong in Lebanon and has carved out gains in southern Syria.

But the policy of withdrawal, when combined with the dismantling of American capability in the region, has made the president  excessively dependent on the goodwill of his interlocutors.  Like a man who has ditched his own car in order to hitchhike on the Highway to Peace, it has to go where the drivers prefer. The administration cannot even openly protect its “moderate rebels” in Syria from Assad — who is backed by Iran for fear of falling off its diplomatic high wire.  Josh Rogin at Bloomberg [4] writes:

The long-awaited Syrian train-and-equip program that President Barack Obama sold to Congress as the way to keep American boots off the ground in Syria is finally about to start training its first troops. … But here’s the problem: The administration hasn’t figured out what to do if and when those troops are attacked by Bashar al-Assad’s air force, after they get back into Syria. One Obama administration official described that prospect to me as the “Achilles’ Heel” of the whole program, calling the deployment the administration’s last and best chance to make the Syria component of its anti-IS strategy work. …

The Pentagon has prepared a memo that sets out a few basic options. The U.S. could use its formidable air assets to cover these rebels, but that would mean engaging militarily against the Assad regime, an act with big political diplomatic, and legal implications. Alternatively, the U.S. could provide its new rebel army with anti-aircraft weapons, such as MANPADs, so it can defend itself. But the risks of proliferation of those weapons to extremists would be dire.

It’s a sad day when you can’t protect your own proteges for fear offending your own allies, and may finish up with neither proteges nor allies. But what’s a guy to do? The president’s reaction to the Jordanian pilot’s hideous death reflects this paralyzing dilemma. He denounced the execution [5] of the pilot in the same tone of voice that one might use to encourage parents to have their kids vaccinated. “Should in fact this video be authentic, it’s just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. And I think we will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated.”

Who is “we” Kemo Sabe?  That is the first and biggest unanswered question of Obama’s foreign policy.  The president’s constant reference to shifting coalitions and alliances is an indirect confession that no one is in charge.

But the expanding conflicts in the region, like the flames which engulfed the unfortunate Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh,  can overpower the exquisite even-handedness of our academic firefighter, who is dousing a four alarm fire with a trowelful of sand here and a squirt of water there, oblivious to the copious quantities of gasoline that Saudi Arabia and Tehran are pouring on the flames. The results of this uneven contest have  been discouraging. Obama who began his term of office promising Grand Bargains has only produced a Grand Guignol [6] of beheadings and cremations that beggars description.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Can only second Ace’s “Douchebag” comment as applying to more than crass tv personalities. Any other description of stew’o’rt and his White House buddy, defies logic. Actually, this is a putdown to the “Douchebag” as it serves some purpose other than just consuming Oxygen with no return on investment.

It is quite possible that, by the time Obama leaves office, no other country on Earth will have gained quite so much as Iran. … Iran would gain stature. Iran would have a better seat in the councils of nations. Iran would gain economic benefits. And Iran’s enemies would be furious.

With Iranian born Valerie Jarrett as Obama’s chief adviser, why would anyone be surprised?