Those who follow me know that for many months, since long before the election I have been discussing three essential elements to the Obama foreign policy that even the Republican idealogues seem unable to recognize.
My belief as to why no one else has pieced this together is simply because of willful disbelief.
What I mean by that, is that even those who identify Obama and his minions as foreign policy “realists” (a horrible misnomer if ever there was one) miss the point about the ultimate driver of the policy and it’s aims.
1) Since the election of 1968, the left wing of the Democratic Party has become the post modern isolationists. This was a radical change from pre WWII when it was the Republican party. But as McGovern and Humphrey tried to leap frog each other to the left in their opposition to Vietnam, at some point the focus on that conflict broadened to reflect an overriding sense that the United States had become an imperialistic, hegemonious, colonialist power.
That our actions, far from serving the world’s good, were evil. That we operated from nefarious motives.
This has been expressed by Obama almost constantly, most notably in his world “apology” tour.
It was also reflected in the infamous Michelle Obama statement about never being proud of her country before now. Even then, the meaning, and larger implications, of that statement was missed. That was the reflection of that attitude, NOT some non specific racial motive as was ascribed to her at the time.
2) Israel, and zionism, are historic mistakes born out of the Holocaust. That Israel is by it’s very nature, a racist, rogue regime.
This has been seen clearly in everything from the complaints about building an apartment building, to the misdirection about so called settlements. Even more so, in his Presidential Memorandum of June, declaring that the Jerusalem Embassy Act cannot be acted upon because of National Security Interests, specifically repudiating the 13 years of Clinton and Bush memoranda on the issue, he has demonstrated that he believes Jerusalem will ultimately not lay in Israeli hands.
Most clearly, this was reflected in his choosing Mary Robinson to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Those Jews on the left, want to, like with all of Obama’s other outrages against Jews and Israel, believe that it was some sort of staff oversight. An unfortunate error.
Please. The one thing Obama has made clear is that he is a micromanager. He did not miss this.
He has clearly announced with this decision his support of Robinson’s “Zionism is racism” statement from Durban I.
3) Obama supports the concept of a regional nuclear power in Iran.
He foolishly believes that his sheer force of personality can contain Iranian desires to be a global nuclear power and reign them in, keeping them a regional player only.
The writings of Ken Pollack, makes this clear, but more importantly, Obama’s words themselves do.
His reiteration of “we don’t get involved in the internal affairs of other countries (except of course Israel)” repeatedly, and his specific line in the Cairo speech that the United States cannot dictate to other nations whether or not they have nuclear weapons.
How this plays out, is that Obama believes he can create, or allow, a theater nuclear power in Shia Iran, to control another theater nuclear power, in Sunni Pakistan.
How does he get the Iranians on his side? By sacrificing Israel to them. He has heard the words coming from Tehran, and actually believes that this is something of critical importance to the Mullahs and the administration of Ahmadinejad.
The title of the post refers to the fact that this information has been coming in individual bits and pieces over the last year.
Everything from Robert Malley’s discussions with Hamas during the campaign, to the elevation of Susan Rice to a cabinet position at the UN, to the appointments of Gen Jones, Samantha Power, et al, and the removal of Dennis Ross from his area of expertise, to the dalliance with Durban II, and the accession of the US to the UN Human Rights Commission, the non specific “timetable” with regard to Iranian ambitions, etc.
But in the last week and a half we have finally seen this played out clearly in two articles written by administration insiders.
First, in the Atlantic, Robert Kaplan, the ultimate “ends justify the means” realist, discusses the necessity of ending the “special relationship” between the US and Israel. Even more he gives specific voice to the idea of the acceptability of a nuclear Iran limited to being a regional power.
Next, Malley himself penned an op ed piece in the NY Times yesterday in which he declares the two state solution to be pointless, and effectively dead. Worse, he once again equates the “right of return” an issue of land, with the recognition of Jewish right to exist, or the right not to be murdered.
If American Jews, or those concerned with the dangers of a nuclear Iran had kept their heads in the sand until now, it is time to remove them, and look at the skyline that has been wrought by our election for “change”. Change is what we got.