Is Obama’s entire Middle East policy designed to undermine Israel?
Let us put everything on the wall and examine it.
The dictators in the Middle East kept the Muslim Brotherhood and the Al-Qeada’s at bay. They were necessary for Israel’s security. Mubarak was critical to maintaining the Israeli/Egyptian Peace Treaty.
Now President Obama is arming the Middle East to the gills, including modern tanks to Egypt in spite of the fact that the new authorities are engaging in Taliban like behavior such as attacking peaceful Coptic Christians with armored military vehicles.
If our entire policy is designed to undermine Israel’s security it explains why Obama was not interested in helping the Iranian freedom movement.
The second highest number of suicide bombers and foreign militants fighting us in Iraq are from Benghazi, Libya which is exactly where the rebel uprising against Gadaffi began. So it is no surprise just who these rebels are.
It could be that the arms sales are an effort to resist Iranian influence. In the case of Bahrain the Iranian backed Shia population (about half the country) is allied with leftists in an effort to gain control away from the Sunni government.
The House of Saud will not allow a Shia government on the peninsula and it is not clear how the Iranians will react to more crackdowns. Of course the left is using the crackdowns as a propaganda tool to try to bring international pressure to keep the Sunni’s and the government from resisting Iranian influence. This leaves an important question. If all of these arms sales are designed to prevent more direct Iranian actions or Iranian backed uprisings why would the Obama administration let the Iranian freedom movement fall flat on its face with no support?
Is this about Israel, Iran, or is our foreign policy so divided between the State Department, the CIA, DoD, and the White House that we have a policy that is flailing about without a focus or unified intent?
Dr. Michael Scheuer: