Saturday, August 24, 2013

CNN Bombshell: CIA Personnel in Benghazi Silenced with Threats to Their Families by Obama Regime

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
Saturday, August 24, 2013
  • On August 1, 2013

CNN Bombshell: CIA Personnel in Benghazi Silenced with Threats to Their Families by Obama Regime

CNN has released yet another bombshell in the ongoing Benghazi scandal, and it is sure to shock those who haven’t been paying attention. Prepare for a window into the “transparent” Obama administration.
According to CNN’s Jake Tapper, the Obama administration is threatening CIA operatives who were on the ground during the deadly terrorist attack in Benghazi to keep them silent:
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
This should quell all naysaying that Benghazi is a “phony scandal” and “there is no cover-up.” Possible links to the Benghazi story that the Obama administration might want to cover-up are the arms shipments to al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in the February 17th Martyr’s Brigade and potential weapons smuggling to al Qaeda-connected rebels in Syria through the Turkish consul.
The CIA operatives’ story is similar to that given by the number two diplomat in Benghazi, Libya — Gregory Hicks. Under oath, Hicks testified that he was told by the State Department not to discuss Benghazi with House Republicans and then was demoted when he did.
It came out earlier this week that diplomatic security specialist David Ubben attempted to rescue Sean Smith before he was killed and then came to the aid of SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty while they were under siege. Mortar fire eventually killed Woods and Doherty, and Ubben was injured and left for 20 hours on a Benghazi rooftop.
In mid-July, Rep. Frank Wolf announced that Benghazi survivors were being silenced by the Obama administration, and are suspected of asking or forcing them to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Recently, a group of 1,000 special operations veterans unrolled a 60-foot petition to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi and why the Obama administration is covering it up.
Editor’s note: This article was edited for length after publication.

U.S forces reportedly enter Syria,

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 24, 2013 - Saturday

Syrian Rebels Today, Syrian Taliban Tomorrow

Ryan Keller
August 22, 2013

 U.S forces reportedly enter Syria, commanding specially trained rebels
French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday that U.S. special operations and CIA teams, along with Israeli and Jordanian forces, have entered Syria, where they're commanding members of the rebellion.
"According to our information," the French paper reports (rough translation from Google), "the regime's opponents, supervised by Jordanian, Israeli and American commandos moving towards Damascus since mid-August."
There are reports that U.S. and Jordanian teams have set up a training camp in Jordan where special operations teams are training members of the Syrian rebel groups in special forces tactics.
An article from Israeli newspaper DEBKAfile yesterday states that up to 250 of these specially trained rebels, commanded by American forces, entered the area of Syria near the Israeli border this past Saturday and were joined by an additional 300 on Monday.
The presence of these rebels has allegedly resulted in a retreat of Syrian forces from the area.
“Operational logic first," Le Figaro continues. "According to information obtained by Le Figaro,the first trained in guerrilla warfare by the Americans in Jordan Syrian troops reportedly entered into action since mid-August in southern Syria, in the region of Deraa. A first group of 300 men, probably supported by Israeli and Jordanian commandos, as well as men of the CIA, had crossed the border on August 17. A second would have joined the 19. According to military sources, the Americans, who do not want to put troops on the Syrian soil or arming rebels in part controlled by radical Islamists form quietly for several months in a training camp set up at the border Jordanian- Syrian fighters ASL, the Free Syrian Army, handpicked.”
While Thursday’s report has yet to be confirmed, it follows yesterday’s report of a chemical weapon used by the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Some, however, remain skeptical that Assad launched such an attack.
The government of Russia, which is allied with the Assad regime, has stated that it believes that the attack was conducted by the Syrian rebels.
“All of this really looks like an attempt, at any cost, to create a reason to produce demands for the U.N. Security Council to side with the regime's opponents and undermine the chances of convening the Geneva conference,said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevi.
The Syrian government has claimed that the chemical attack was fabricated.
Independent analysts have also expressed doubt about the attack.
Weapons and chemical explosives expert Stephen Johnson of the Cranfield Forensic Institutetold Euro News that footage of the aftermath of the alleged chemical attack, including people foaming at the mouth, looks suspicious.
“There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if they’ve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which you’d expect to be bloodier or yellower,” Johnson said.
Suggested by the author

UPDATE-VIDEO: Does Jailed Brotherhood leader have goods on Obama?

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 24, 2013

Posted by 

SHOCKING VIDEO Exposes Evidence That Obama Financed Benghazi Terrorists

For more information regarding what has been put forth in the video, let me recommend the following articles:
 Tim Brown is the Editor of Freedom Outpost and a regular contributor to The D.C. Clothesline.
Follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter.

Does Jailed Brotherhood leader have goods on Obama?

Walid Shoebat  by Shoebat Foundation on August 13, 2013 l
The Obama administration’s call for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt is inexplicable. The trip to Egypt bySenators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during which they called for the same thing is even more inexplicable, especially since both men are demanding answers in Benghazi. Yes, we know Obama’s leanings but why the rush to release these prisoners and not shine a spotlight on them? If the details of an interview with the son of one of those imprisoned leaders is any indication, we may be getting closer to answering that question.
Saad Al-Shater: My father has the goods on Obama
Saad Al-Shater: My father has the goods on Obama
We caution that the following be taken with a grain of salt but considering who said it, we thought it newsworthy too. Here is a direct translation of the key points, followed by some analysis:
In an interview with the Anatolia News Agency, Saad Al-Shater, the son of a Muslim Brotherhood leader, the detained Khairat Al-Shater, said that his father had in his handevidence that will land the head of United States of America, president Obama, in prison. He stressed that the senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt, knows full well that the fate, future, interests and reputation of their country is in the hands of his father, and they know that he owns the information, documents and recordings that incriminate and would condemn their country. Such documents, he says, were placed in the hands of people who were entrusted inside and outside Egypt, and thatthe release of his father is the only way for them to prevent a great catastrophe. He stated that a warning was sent threatening to show how the U.S. administration was directly connected. The evidence was sent through intermediaries which caused them to change their attitude and corrected their position and that they have taken serious steps to prove good faith. Saad also said that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mohammed Mursi. [emphasis ours]
Khairat Al-Shater: Does he have the goods on Obama
Khairat Al-Shater: Does he have the goods on Obama
That this interview happened and the younger Al-Shater made these claims is backed up by at least six Arabic sources.
When Saad’s comments are viewed in the context of the bizarre behavior of U.S. officials, it provides the best explanation to date for extremely irrational and inexplicable behavior of those officials.
First, the interview with Saad was dated August 7, 2013. The reference made to “senior U.S. delegation currently visiting Egypt” is presumably a reference to McCain, Graham, and Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. During that trip, McCain and Graham both called for the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders with McCain making news by calling Mursi’s ouster a “coup”. Graham suggested that Egypt was “looking into the abyss” and then suggested releasing Brotherhood leaders was the path away from it (huh?). In an interview with CNN, McCain named Al-Shater specifically when asked about individuals that could negotiate a future Egyptian government.
McCain and Graham: Schizophrenia or self-preservation?
McCain and Graham: Schizophrenia or self-preservation?
In what may be an effort to play both sides of the fence, Graham was one of eight Congressional Republicans who sent a letter to incoming FBI Director James Comey, just days before Graham went to Egypt. That letter demanded more answers over what happened in Benghazi. Such a demand, coupled with his call for the release of individuals who, probable cause suggests, should be investigated over Benghazi is beyond curious; it’s schizophrenic.
The two Senators were clearly throwing bones to the Brotherhood. Such behavior makes no sense. It would, however, if Saad Al-Shater is telling the truth; it would also eliminate schizophrenia as a cause.
Second, how about Saad’s claim that his father’s safety is more important to the Americans than is the safety of Mursi? This is where we’d like to introduce Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns. While Graham and McCain were busy sucking up to the Brotherhood in Egypt, Burns visited one of its leaders in prison.
Bill Burns: Met with Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes
Bill Burns: Met with Khairat Al-Shater for 90 Minutes
He didn’t visit Mursi; Burns visited Al-Shater. Reports put that visit at about 90 minutes, despite attempts by both parties to play the visit down. As we reported in EXHIBIT A-1 of Addendum A, Al-Shater is implicated in weapons trafficking through the Sinai and into Gaza as well as negotiating prisoner releases in exchange for terrorists. He has also been jailed multiple times.
Again, why would the United States’ #2 diplomat traipse over to Egypt to talk with a jailed Muslim Brotherhood leader? And why Al-Shater? We can’t answer those questions but we can say that Saad Al-Shater’s alleged charges make more sense than the behavior of U.S. officials.
Of course, State Department ventriloquist dummy Jen Psaki called for the release of Mursi last month:
**UPDATE on August 13, 2013 at 6:30pm EST**
We’ve received feedback from more than one person who doesn’t like our including the 
“take it with a grain of salt” line in this post. Just to clarify… We have no doubt that Saad Al-Shater interviewed with Anatolia News Agency and said what he said. In fact, that’s the main reason we decided to post about it. We’re simply cautious when relying on the veracity of a witness who happens to be the son of a terrorist and who supports his father’s ideology. We stand by the sourcing.

Mubarak's Muslim Brotherhood Prophecy

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
Saturday, August 24, 2013

Hosni Mubarak
Mubarak's Muslim Brotherhood Prophecy
Violence must always be presented as a product of political oppression, and Islamists as the misunderstood victims.
In a video of Hosni Mubarak when he was still Egypt's president, the strategies of which he accuses the Muslim Brotherhood have come to pass. What follows are Mubarak's words from a conference in Egypt (date unknown; author's translation):
So they [Brotherhood and affiliates] took advantage of the economic situation by handing out money -- to one man, 100 Egyptian pounds, or about $30 dollars, [saying,] "Here take this bag of glycerin and throw it here," or do this or that — to create a state of instability in Egypt. And these groups — do not ever believe that they want democracy or anything like that. They are exploiting democracy to eliminate democracy. And if they ever do govern, it will be an ugly dictatorship. …. Once a foreigner told me, "Well, if that's the case, why don't you let them form parties?" I told him, "They'd attack each other." He said, "So let them attack each other." I came to understand that by "attack each other" he thought I meant through dialogue. For years, we have been trying to dialogue with them, and we still are. If the dialogue is limited to words, fine. But when the dialogue goes from words to bullets and bombs… [Mubarak shakes his head, and then provides anecdotes of the Egyptian police and security detail being killed by Brotherhood and affiliates. These anecdotes include one about how 104 policemen were killed in 1981, and one about how one officer was shot by MB while trying to save a boy's life.] The point is, we do not like bloodshed, neither our soldiers' nor our officers'. But when I see that you are firing at me, trying to kill me—well, I have to defend myself. Then the international news agencies go to these [Islamist] groups for information, and they tell them, "They are killing us, they are killing us!" Well, don't you [news agencies] see them killing the police?! I swear to you, not one of the police wants to kill them—not one of us. Then they say, "So, Mr. President, you gave orders to the police to open fire indiscriminately?"—I cannot give such an order, at all. It contradicts the law. I could at one point be judged [for it].
Consider Mubarak's exchange with "a foreigner," who interpreted Mubarak's "they'd attack each other" in apparently Western political terms of "dialogue." The habit of projecting Western approaches onto Islamists—who ironically represent the antithesis of the West—is one of the chief problems causing the West to be blind to reality, one which insists that violence must always be presented as a product of political oppression, and Islamists as the misunderstood victims.
Whatever one thinks of Hosni Mubarak, the following three points he makes have proven true:
  1. Mubarak: "And these groups—don't ever believe that they want democracy or anything like that. They are exploiting democracy to eliminate democracy. And if they ever do govern, it will be an ugly dictatorship." Quite so. While paying lip service to democracy, once the Brotherhood came into power under former President Muhammad Morsi, they became openly tyrannical: Morsi gave himself unprecedented powers for an Egyptian president, appointed Brotherhood members to all important governmental posts, "Brotherhoodizing" Egypt (as Egyptians called it), and quickly pushed through a Sharia-heavy constitution. Under Morsi's one year of rule, many more Christians were attacked, arrested, and imprisoned for "blasphemy" than under Mubarak's thirty years.
  2. Mubarak: "Then the international news agencies go to these groups [Brotherhood] for information, and they tell them, 'they are killing us, they are killing us!' Well, don't you [new agencies] see them killing the police?!" Now that the Brotherhood has been ousted and is promoting terrorism in Egypt—especiallyagainst its Christian minority—trying to push the nation into an all-out civil war, they are in fact feeding the international media the old lie that they are innocent, peaceful victims in an attempt to garner Western sympathy.
  3. Mubarak: "They took advantage of the economic situation by handing out money." Funded by rich Wahhabi states, the Islamist organizations bought their way into Egyptian society and power. Prior to elections, they paid—bribed—Egyptians to vote for them; and after their ousting, they are paying people—along with beatings and forms of coercion—to stay with them in Rad'a al-Adawiya Square, and provide them with numbers, seemingly for practical and propagandistic purposes.
In Egypt, however, where the Muslim Brotherhood was born, one soon learns that, when "dialogue" does not go the way Islamists want it to, it's back to terrorism. This requires a more realistic approach, or, in the words of Mubarak, a man who, like his predecessors, especially Gamal Abdel Nasser, is intimately acquainted with the Brotherhood: "When I see that you are firing at me, trying to kill me—well, I have to defend myself."
Raymond Ibrahim is author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam's New War in Christians (published by Regnery in cooperation with Gatestone Institute, April 2013). He is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an associate fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Abu Bluff seethes: No 'progress' in 'talks'

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 24, 2013
Bee's note: Abbas' idea of a "2-state solution" is having Israel return to the pre-1967 borders and making Jerusalem the PA's "capital", revealing just how insincere the "Palestinians" are about "peace" with Israel. The West, including the U.S., refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital; is that because they intended to hand it over to these "Palestinians" all along?  Why not cut the hearts out of all Israelis and while you're at it, re-write 3,000 years of Israel's history.

Israel demonstrated her yearning for peace when she released the first of over 100 Palestinian terrorists earlier this month.  Did the earth stop moving?  Was that not enough to appease Abbas?  Of course not, as he now whines about Israel still living and breathing, and building homes on their own land for its growing population.

Previous Agreements, like the Oslo Agreement, are proof enough that signing agreements with the "PLO/Palestinians" has never prevented the killings and suicide bombings of Palestinian terrorists (and I'm not talking about Hamas); nor will any piece of paper signed today, stop the goal of these Arab "Palestinians" bent on murdering all Jews and taking over Israel as another Arab country.  

Let's just end the pretense today and save on jet fuel between Washington and Israel.  Call it a day until everyone understands Israel will remain long after Abbas and his gang are gone.

Please go back and read a post dated August 2, 2013: Despite dubious claims to the contrary, Israel has international law on its side.

by Carl in Jerusalem
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Abu Bluff seethes: No 'progress' in 'talks'
'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen whined to a delegation of Meretz MK's on Thursday that no 'progress' is being made in the 'talks.' Israel isn't willing to commit suicide quickly enough. 
Abbas told a visiting delegation of Meretz representatives, headed by MK Zehava Gal-On that the Palestinian people are ready for peace but that there cannot be an interim agreement but only a final status deal that can be implemented in stages. Abbas reassured the MKs that he had given up hope of returning to his childhood home in Safed and that Palestinian refugees will not return to Jaffa or Acre.
Abbas's statements were the first leak from the talks in which US Secretary of State John Kerry was supposed to be the only one authorized to reveal information to the public.
The Palestinian leader complained that the two sides were not meeting often enough. He said the delegations should be meeting every day, and that he wanted to meet with Netanyahu directly.
Abbas also told the MKs Israel’s continued construction in the settlements and east Jerusalem neighborhoods does not create the appropriate atmosphere for the current peace talks. Abbas said the PA leadership was nevertheless interested in making the peace talks with Israel succeed.
Abbas reiterated his commitment to achieving a just and lasting peace based on a two-state solution with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, said a statement released by the PA president’s office following the meeting.
Abbas told the Meretz representatives that the release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails was unrelated to the launching of the peace talks.
Now, tell me what he's saying in Arabic....

Resetting U.S. Foreign Policy - by Caroline Glick

August 23, 2013 By  

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post
169338855.jpg.CROP.rectangle3-largeAside from the carnage in Benghazi, the most enduring image from Hillary Clinton’s tenure as US secretary of state was the fake remote control she brought with her to Moscow in 2009 with the word “Reset” in misspelled Russian embossed on it.
Clinton’s gimmick was meant to show that under President Barack Obama, American foreign policy would be fundamentally transformed. Since Obama and Clinton blamed much of the world’s troubles on the misdeeds of their country, under their stewardship of US foreign policy, the US would reset everything.
Around the globe, all bets were off.
Five years later we realize that Clinton’s embarrassing gesture was not a gimmick, but a dead serious pledge. Throughout the world, the Obama administration has radically altered America’s policies.
And disaster has followed. Never since America’s establishment has the US appeared so untrustworthy, destructive, irrelevant and impotent.
Consider Syria. Wednesday was the one-year anniversary of Obama’s pledge that the US would seek the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime if Assad used chemical weapons against his opponents.
On Wednesday, Assad’s forces used chemical weapons against civilians around Damascus. According to opposition forces, well over a thousand people were murdered.
Out of habit, the eyes of the world turned to Washington. But Obama has no policy to offer. Obama’s America can do nothing.
America’s powerlessness in Syria is largely Obama’s fault. At the outset of the Syrian civil war two-and-a-half years ago, Obama outsourced the development of Syria’s opposition forces to Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. He had other options. A consortium of Syrian Kurds, moderate Sunnis, Christians and others came to Washington and begged for US assistance. But they were ignored.
Obama’s decision to outsource the US’s Syria policy owed to his twin goals of demonstrating that the US would no longer try to dictate international outcomes, and of allying the US with Islamic fundamentalists.
Both of these goals are transformative.
In the first instance, Obama believes that anti-Americanism stems from America’s actions. By accepting the mantel of global leadership, Obama believes the US insulted other nations. To mitigate their anger, the US should abdicate leadership.
As for courting Islamic fundamentalists, from his earliest days in office Obama insisted that since radical Islam is the most popular movement in the Islamic world, radical Islam is good. Radical Muslims are America’s friends.
Obama embraced Erdogan, an Islamic fascist who has won elections, as his closest ally and most trusted adviser in the Muslim world.
And so, with the full support of the US government, Erdogan stacked Syria’s opposition forces with radical Muslims like himself. Within months the Muslim Brotherhood comprised the majority in Syria’s US-sponsored opposition.
The Muslim Brotherhood has no problem collaborating with al-Qaida, because the latter was formed by Muslim Brothers.
It shares the Brotherhood’s basic ideology.
Since al-Qaida has the most experienced fighters, its rise to leadership and domination of the Syrian opposition was a natural progression.
In other words, Obama’s decision to have Turkey form the Syrian opposition led inevitably to the current situation in which the Iranian- and Russian-backed Syrian regime is fighting an opposition dominated by al-Qaida.
At this point, short of an Iraq-style US invasion of Syria and toppling of the regime, almost any move the US takes to overthrow the government will strengthen al-Qaida. So after a reported 1,300 people were killed by chemical weapons launched by the regime on Wednesday, the US has no constructive options for improving the situation.
A distressing aspect of Obama’s embrace of Erdogan is that Erdogan has not tried to hide the fact that he seeks dictatorial powers and rejects the most basic norms of liberal democracy and civil rights.
Under the fa├žade of democracy, Erdogan has transformed Turkey into one of the most repressive countries in the world. Leading businessmen, generals, journalists, parliamentarians and regular citizens have been systematically rounded up and accused of treason for their “crime” of opposing Turkey’s transformation into an Islamic state. Young protesters demanding civil rights and an end to governmental corruption are beaten and arrested by police, and demonized by Erdogan. Following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt last month, Erdogan has openly admitted that he and his party are part and parcel of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama’s approach to world affairs was doubtlessly shaped during his long sojourn in America’s elite universities.
Using the same elitist sensibilities that cause him to blame American “arrogance” for the world’s troubles, and embrace radical Islam as a positive force, Obama has applied conflict resolution techniques developed by professors in ivory towers to real world conflicts that cannot be resolved peacefully.
Obama believed he could use the US’s close relationships with Israel and Turkey to bring about a rapprochement between the former allies. But he was wrong. The Turkish-Israeli alliance ended because Erdogan is a virulent Jew-hater who seeks Israel’s destruction, not because of a misunderstanding.
Obama forced Israel to apologize for defending itself against Turkish aggression, believing that Erdogan would then reinstate full diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. Instead, Erdogan continued his assault on Israel, most recently accusing it of organizing the military coup in Egypt and the anti- Erdogan street protests in Turkey.
As for Egypt, as with Syria, Obama’s foreign policy vision for the US has left Washington with no options for improving the situation on the ground or for securing its own strategic interests. To advance his goal of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama pushed the Egyptian military to overthrow the regime of US ally Hosni Mubarak and so paved the way for elections that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power.
Today he opposes the military coup that ousted the Muslim Brotherhood government.
The US claims that it opposes the coup because the military has trampled democracy and human rights. But it is all but silent in the face of the Muslim Brotherhood’s own trampling of the human rights of Egypt’s Christian minority.
Obama ignores the fact that Mohamed Morsi governed as a tyrant far worse than Mubarak.
Ignoring the fact that neither side can share power with the other, the US insists the Brotherhood and the military negotiate an agreement to do just that. And so both sides hate and distrust the US.
Wresting an Israeli apology to Turkey was Obama’s only accomplishment during his trip to Israel in March. Secretary of State John Kerry’s one accomplishment since entering office was to restart negotiations between Israel and the PLO. Just as the consequence of Israel’s apology to Turkey was an escalation of Turkey’s anti- Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric, so the consequence of Kerry’s “accomplishment” will be the escalation of Palestinian terrorism and political warfare against Israel.
As Jonathan Tobin noted Wednesday in Commentary, to secure Palestinian agreement to reinstate negotiations, not only did Kerry force Israel to agree to release more than a thousand Palestinian terrorists from prison. He put the US on record supporting the Palestinians’ territorial demands. In so doing, Kerry locked the US into a position of blaming Israel once the talks fail. When the Palestinians escalate their political and terrorist campaign against Israel, they will use Kerry’s pledges as a means of justifying their actions.
The current round of talks will fail of course because like the Turks, the Syrians and the Egyptians, the Palestinians are not interested in resolving their conflict.
They are interested in winning it. They do not want a state. They want to supplant Israel.
Clinton’s Reset button was played up as a gimmick. But it was a solemn oath. And it was fulfilled. And as a result, the world is a much more violent and dangerous place. The US and its allies are more threatened. The US’s enemies from Moscow to Tehran to Venezuela are emboldened.
The time has come to develop the basis for a future US policy that would represent a reset of Obama’s catastrophic actions and attitudes. Given the damage US power and prestige has already suffered, and given that Obama is unlikely to change course in his remaining three years in power, it is clear that reverting to George W. Bush’s foreign policy of sometimes fighting a war on nebulous “terrorists” and sometimes appeasing them will not be sufficient to repair the damage.
The US must not exchange strategic insanity with strategic inconsistency.
Instead, a careful, limited policy based on no-risk and low-risk moves that send clear messages and secure clear interests is in order.
The most obvious no-risk move would be to embrace Israel as America’s most vital and only trustworthy ally in the region. By fully supporting Israel not only would the US strengthen its own position by strengthening the position of the only state in the Middle East that shares its enemies, its interests and its values.
Washington would send a strong signal to states throughout the region and the world that the US can again be trusted.
This support would also secure clear US strategic interests by providing Israel with the political backing it requires to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. Moreover, it would bring coherence to the US’s counter-terror strategy by ending US support for Palestinian statehood. Instead, the US would support the institution of the rule of law and liberal norms of government in Palestinian society by supporting the application of Israel’s liberal legal code over Judea and Samaria.
Another no-risk move is to support former Soviet satellite states that are now members of NATO. Here, too, the US would be taking an action that is clear and involves no risk. Russia would have few options for opposing such a move. And the US could go a long way toward rebuilding its tattered reputation.
Low risk moves include supporting minorities that do not have a history of violent anti-Americanism and are, in general, opposed to Islamic fascism.
Such groups include the Kurds. In Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Iran, the Kurds represent a national group that has proven its ability to self-govern and to oppose tyranny. With certain, easily identified exceptions, the stronger the Kurds are, the weaker anti-American forces become.
Then there are the Christians. The plight of the Christians in the Islamic world is one of the most depressing chapters in the recent history of the region. In country after country, previously large and relatively peaceful, if discriminated against, Christian minorities are being slaughtered and forced to flee.
The US has done next to nothing to defend them.
Strong, forthright statements of support for Christian communities and condemnations of persecution, including rape, forced conversions, massacre, extortion and destruction of church and private Christian-owned property from Egypt to Indonesia to Pakistan to the Palestinian Authority would make a difference in the lives of millions of people.
It would also go some way toward rehabilitating the US’s reputation as a champion of human rights, after Obama’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Under Obama, America has made itself worse than irrelevant. In country after country, it has become dangerous to be a US ally. The world as a whole is a much more dangerous place as a consequence.
Nothing short of a fundamental transformation of US foreign policy will suffice to begin to repair the damage.