mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
The Nuclear Deal
Iran: What Happens When Sanctions Lift?
Features Icon
show comments
  • gabrielsyme

    Obama’s policy in the Middle East is schizophrenic. In Iraq he supported Maliki, a Shia supremacist who oppressed and marginalised Sunnis; in Egypt he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni supremacists who opened up private violence and public oppression on Coptic Christians; and in Syria he supported the rebels who are almost entirely Sunni supremacists whose plans for the Shia minority are wicked at best and genocidal at worst. In seeking rapprochement with Iran, he’s demonstrating a willingness to support Shia interests throughout the region.

    It’s bizarrely incoherent.

    • Dan Greene

      Maliki came to power on Bush’s watch. He may have been Shia-centric, but he was elected. He was pushed out of power on Obama’s watch. What did you want him to do?

      Morsi was also elected. The Obama administration stood by as he was overthrown in a bloody military coup and then after a “decent interval” we started to cosy of to the dictator. What did you want Obama to do?

      And you are utterly misinformed about the Morsi government’s attitude towards Christians.

      In Syria, Obama has drifted back and forth. The issue there is that we can’t decide which is a bigger threat–Sunni jihadists or Shia/Alawites who are seen as strategic assets of Iran whom we obsessively fear.

      In negotiating with Iran, he realizes that the Islamic Republic is the single most significant Muslim state in the region and that reaching an entente would have significant long-term advantages for us (as opposed to continuing to push Iran into Chinese and Russian arms. Yet it’s not clear whether he really does want to do make serious offers to Iran that they can possibly accept. It may all turn out to be smoke and mirrors.

      Yes, it has been incoherent, but that’s because we are trying to campaign simultaneously against both Sunni elements and block Iran’s rise. But that policy is not really a product of Obama’s leadership. He lacks the power to really set a course, He is being driven back and forth by the powerful political interests and lobbies that dominate the policy process, and he is trapped by a lot of what Bush did.

    • Ellen

      Exactly. Obama’s policies on EVERYTHING are bizarrely incoherent because he has never thought through anything beyond getting himself elected. That was his only skill. Since being elected twice, everything he does is driven by immediate political and PR gains, which is a disastrous way to run a government. This is aggravated by the fact that he has perverse sympathies, a product of his Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres years of mentoring, and this is the other pertinent factor in his wild swings of policy back and forth. There are groups he would like to support because they fit the radical left antiAmerican agenda, but sometimes he can’t because they are so downright repulsive, so then he does something more in American interests. But it goes against his grain, clearly.

      What a disaster he has been in foreign policy. That will be his main legacy. Much worse than Jimmy Carter whose most memorable fiasco involved only one country – Iran. Obama’s fiascos involve virtually every country of the MidEast, plus Ukraine. I doubt Hillary Clinton could win an election with that albatross around her neck, along with all of her other problems. The Republicans will have to reverse everything he is now doing. That will be his other legacy – a nullification of everything he has done. What a gigantic zero of a presidency.

  • rheddles

    A smarter and more realistic American policy to counter Iran’s regional quest for supremacy

    What in the world makes you think Baraq Obama wants to counter Iran’s quest for regional supremacy Everything he has done in the middle east supports that goal.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service