Tuesday, December 22, 2015


The last couple of months we've seen professional analysts and commentators struggling with the question, what the hell is Obama's strategy with the Islamic State, or ISIL as he prefers it. Answers have been ranging from "there is no strategy" to outright incompetence. Here's an hypothesis that Obama favors Iran over the Sunni alliance. 

Nov. 22, 2015 Rush Limbaugh talks to Chris Wallace on terror attack, refugee crisis.

UPDATE: It is intriguing that mainstream media has focused on violent terrorist acts of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS), a radical Sunni Islamist group, while they are deliberately avoiding raising awareness about other Islamist terrorist groups that are as brutal as ISIS, if not worse. The other groups that I am referring to are primarily the Iranian-backed radical Islamist militias. Brutal terrorist groups such as Kataib al-Imam Ali (KIA) are not any less violent than ISIS when it comes to the aggressive and horrific tactics they use against civilians. (...) Another militia group that is known locally for its violent attacks is Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq. It reportedly receives approximately $2 million a month from the Islamic Republic. There exist more than 100 of these Islamist terrorist groups (...) One reason behind the liberal media outlets’ failure to shed light on non-ISIS terrorist groups is that they do not want to criticize Iran. These outlets are heavily influenced by the Obama administration's leniency toward the Islamic Republic. If President Obama views Iran as a constructive state actor, then the media put aside standards of professional journalism and follow in the footsteps of the President. (...) (Source)

Nov. 23, 2015


In above video is Limbaugh himself explaining his theory that Iran is the beneficiary of Obama's inaction. Obama being essentially an egalitarian, it is more likely he's actually trying to balance Sunni versus Shia power. He himself is on the record saying that he doesn't want to "choose between Islam's two great traditions".

Nov. 17, 2015


Nov. 16, 2015 Walid Phares: "Obama's pressured by Iran" (at 08:00 mark).

The great question many have been ponderingis, why is the greatest army on the face of the planet unable to "take out these bastards". There has been a lot of speculation among experts. Walid Phares, National Defense University professor, in an interview yesterday on Fox had the following to share:
Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab "moderate" forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.
This needs some clarification. In yesterday's show, the legendary Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh interpreted Phares' comments as follows:

"The bottom line is, according to Walid Phares, that Obama is choosing sides. The Iranians want to run in the Middle East, for all intents and purposes, and the Syrians, and that alliance, and that's the alliance he's thrown down with. Now, it's up for us to go figure out why the Iranian nuke deal. I think with Obama you can't take the politics out of anything.

Obama has said recently that wherever there is sectarian violence, we aren't gonna get involved. We're not gonna touch ground. We're not gonna have boots on the ground. We're not gonna contribute. We're not gonna donate. We're not gonna do one thing in any Middle Eastern area where there is sectarian violence going on because Obama says no matter if we beat back one group, we don't know who's gonna replace them. That's one of the strategies, by the way, that Phares mentions here that's not in the bite.

Obama is worried about taking out ISIS 'cause he doesn't know what's gonna replace them. At least ISIS is known.  (...)  But the sectarian violence aspect of this all relates to being able to blame all this on George W. Bush. Sectarian violence defined as Sunni versus Shi'ite, for example. (...) Shi'a Iran wants the Sunni regions of the Middle East destabilized, therefore they want ISIS to continue to operate. ISIS destabilizes. That will ultimately help Iran take over the entire region in the future.

Obama gave Iran money by lifting the sanctions. He's given them permission for nukes, which is a giant threat leverage that Iran's gonna have. So it seems that Obama has chosen Shi'a Iran to be the dominant force in the Middle East. That's what Walid Phares is essentially saying the strategy is. (...) that what Iran wants in the Middle East is what Obama is interested in.

But when you look at recent events, it makes perfect sense. Shi'a Iran wants the Sunni regions of the Middle East destabilized, always at war, always in chaos. Kind of like Obama wants middle America always at war and in a state of chaos and unrest. Now, who can keep the Middle East destabilized? ISIS. Who is destabilizing the Middle East? ISIS. Who's not really taking any action to stop ISIS? The United States. Who is the leader of such action in the world were it to happen? United States.

There's no leadership. We are not at all serious. It's obvious. We are not at all serious about dealing with ISIS, and now, according to Walid Phares, we know why. ISIS continues to destabilize the Sunni regions of the Middle East. That ultimately helps Iran take over the entire region in the future. We have an alliance out there we're refusing to join of the Saudis, the Jordanians, Egyptians, and the United Arab Emirates who are fighting terrorism, including ISIS, all over the region.

If you look at actual events on the ground, Obama, with Republican help, the Corker Bill in the Senate, lifting sanctions against Iran, $150 billion frozen that Iran is now going to get. They are also going to build nuclear weapons. They have been granted permission to build nuclear weapons by virtue of our nuke deal with them.

So they get $150 billion of their assets frozen because we secure the lifting of sanctions, and they can never be slapped back on. There's some Republican candidates, "Hey, go ahead, and if Iran violates, we slap the sanctions back on." We can't. We would have to go back and rewrite new legislation that Obama would have to sign. We can't just slap sanctions back on, folks. They have been permanently lifted. That equals $150 billion.

You add that, the Iranians have permission to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program. And it appears that Obama has chosen Shi'a Iran to be the dominant force in a region of Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. That appears to be the arrangement, if Walid Phares is right. And if there's anybody who would know, it would be him. Nothing else makes any sense. 

Nothing else makes any common sense. Innocent civilians being killed around the world, Christians are being chased out of their homes and killed all over the world. People are being beheaded by ISIS and Obama twiddles his thumbs and basically says, "Well, we got a strategy to deal with it, they're the JV team. We're actually containing them. We're doing a good job of containing them."

Why would Obama be sympathetic to the Iranians? Why can't he say "militant Islamic terrorism"? He can't even provide people validation for what they're already thinking about ISIS. He will not even strongly condemn ISIS. It's just breathtaking to behold. (...)