The AP is reporting that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is of the view that the attack in Iraq to retake the city of Tikrit from ISIS is likely to succeed. General Dempsey says that the numbers in favor of the Iraqi army and Iranian led Shiite militias are too great for ISIS to counter. Further, American air power is striking ISIS targets in the region and keeping other ISIS troops from being able to reinforce the ISIS garrison in Tikrit. It's a big alliance of US, Iraqi and Iranian forces to oust ISIS from Tikrit.
If you had any doubt as to why president Obama has come forward with such a weak deal on the Iranian nuclear program, this news story tells you the answer. Obama would much rather have Iranian forces fighting with the Iraqis to get rid of ISIS than to see any American troops involved. For Obama, the worst outcome would be to send US troops to fight in Iraq, something to which he has an ideological aversion. You know Obama's belief: war is bad, American war is worse, and American war in Iraq smacks of George W. Bush and must be avoided at all costs.
The problem, however, is that Obama is way too simplistic. He refuses to think ahead. There's the old adage about one side playing checkers while the other plays chess. In Obama's case, he's playing tic-tac-toe, not even something as complicated as checkers. If ISIS is ousted from Iraq with the heavy involvement of Iran, and if Obama enters into a weak deal like the current proposal on Iranian nukes, the world will see an Iraq under heavy Iranian control coupled with a nuclear armed Iran. Remember, to Iran's rulers America remains the Great Satan. The fact that the USA helps Iran take over control of Iraq will not change that perception. For more than thirty years, Iran has hated the USA. Thousands of Americans have died in attacks launched by Iran or with Iranian support. In many respects, the Iranians are following the dictum of never letting a crisis go to waste. ISIS now motivates Obama's actions, so the Iranians are taking over Iraq and getting nukes by doing what they would have done anyway which is fight against a Sunni fundamentalist terror group.
The damage that will be done by this move by Obama to form a de facto alliance with Iran is enormous. It will not be easy for the next president to undo.
If you had any doubt as to why president Obama has come forward with such a weak deal on the Iranian nuclear program, this news story tells you the answer. Obama would much rather have Iranian forces fighting with the Iraqis to get rid of ISIS than to see any American troops involved. For Obama, the worst outcome would be to send US troops to fight in Iraq, something to which he has an ideological aversion. You know Obama's belief: war is bad, American war is worse, and American war in Iraq smacks of George W. Bush and must be avoided at all costs.
The problem, however, is that Obama is way too simplistic. He refuses to think ahead. There's the old adage about one side playing checkers while the other plays chess. In Obama's case, he's playing tic-tac-toe, not even something as complicated as checkers. If ISIS is ousted from Iraq with the heavy involvement of Iran, and if Obama enters into a weak deal like the current proposal on Iranian nukes, the world will see an Iraq under heavy Iranian control coupled with a nuclear armed Iran. Remember, to Iran's rulers America remains the Great Satan. The fact that the USA helps Iran take over control of Iraq will not change that perception. For more than thirty years, Iran has hated the USA. Thousands of Americans have died in attacks launched by Iran or with Iranian support. In many respects, the Iranians are following the dictum of never letting a crisis go to waste. ISIS now motivates Obama's actions, so the Iranians are taking over Iraq and getting nukes by doing what they would have done anyway which is fight against a Sunni fundamentalist terror group.
The damage that will be done by this move by Obama to form a de facto alliance with Iran is enormous. It will not be easy for the next president to undo.
type="text/javascript">
(function() {
var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true;
po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s);
})();
(function() {
var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true;
po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s);
})();
No comments:
Post a Comment