There must be a rational explanation for Obama’s regional 'strategy'


“[In] order to gain Tehran’s cooperation in the campaign…  Ankara and Washington agreed Saturday, July 25, to name [their “partial no fly zone”]in northern Syria the “Islamic State free zone” [thereby eliminating Assad’s forces and Hezbollah as targets]... Washington [also] agreed to Ankara using its air and ground operations against… Kurdish forces which are also fighting ISIS[!]”


I recently posted “Peace in our Time” - Obama’s deal with the Nuclear Devil which opened: 

“so far as the Obama administration effort is involved there has been a constant, often desperate appearing negotiation beginning almost immediately following (him) taking office more than six years ago...” 

The president’s intended outreach to the repressive regime in Teheran was publicly affirmed as, despite heavy criticism at home, President Obama ignored pleas by Iranian students beaten and murdered during the 2009 street protests challenging Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s reelection with “60%” of the vote. During the three months of protest “Iranian authorities closed universities in Tehran, blocked web sites, blocked cell phone transmissions and text messaging, and banned rallies.” Seventy-two students and others died at the hands of regime goon squads backed by the regimes elite terror army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Command (IRGC). And Obama, self-proclaimed champion of “democracy” and Muslim youth as Obama stood idly by a passive observer. Two years later, exploiting Egyptian students protesting for jobs in Cairo’s Tahrir Square Obama turned activist on behalf of “student’s right to protest” and “encouraged” President Mubarak, long-time ally of the United States, to quit the presidency.


How explain two similar situations with wildly opposite presidential responses: loyalty to students, or regime. And if regime why overthrow Egypt’s president, a long-time and loyal ally of the United States? The only outcome consistent as motive seems to be support for Political Islam: Obama replaced the secularist Mubarak with the anti-secularist Muslim Brotherhood. Iran, a declared terror state by the US State Department; Muslim Brotherhood assassin of President Sadat and parent of al-Qaida!


Over the course of two presidencies, both presidents along with their spokesmen and the principle advisers have repeatedly assured America’s “regional allies,” both Sunni Arab and Israel, that America’s Iran initiative was backed by the threat of military force or, as it was represented, “all options are on the table.” Except the military, under Bush’s choice (reaffirmed by Obama) defense secretary Robert Gates never tired of warning against the military option due to never defined “unforeseen consequences.” America’s intentions were, from the start, clear to both Iran and America’s regional “allies.” The US never had a “military option.”


In a speech on 7/25/15 Iranian President Rouhani, international assurance of Iran now acknowledged a nuclear threshold state, mocked the “threat”:  


“The US should know that it has no other option but respecting Iran and showing modesty…”


So much for an America-neutralized Iranian nuclear threat!


Coincidentally on 25 July Turkey and the United States announced agreement to establish a joint “no-fly zone” on the Turkish-Syrian border. Long-sought by the Obama Administration the agreement for what was termed the “Islamic State free zone” contained several restrictions clearly intended to appease Iran: the zone specifically protects areas in which Assad forces and Hezbollah, both Iranian surrogates, are conducting military operations: The US is now effectively protecting the murderous regime in Damascus; is now openly allied with Iran, a State Department designated terror-supporting government!


A second and no less important, in terms of the war against ISIL which the new “no-fly zone” is intended to support is Washington agreeing to allow Turkey to attack the Kurds, the Kurds fighting ISIL in Syria. Ostensibly limited to attacking PKK positions, the PKK and Kurd force, the Peshmerga, have been fighting side by side the so-called “Islamic State” forces in Syria for months. Not just fighting, but recognized as the most effective regional fighting force in the war against ISIL.


With the Iraqi Army in flight from ISIL in December, 2014 it was the Kurds who not only stopped the advance but pushed back the previously unstoppable enemy. While the US was dropping “humanitarian aid” by air, it was the Kurds who saved the Yazidis trapped on Mt. Shingal from certain death at ISIL hands. And when ISIL captured the Mosul Dam feeding Iraq’s main reservoir again the Kurds forced ISIL to retreat. More recently it was the combined Kurdish force of PKK and Peshmerga troops that retook the strategic town of Kobane which, in the hands of ISIL, would have provided ISIL an open border crossing to Turkey. Recently Obama’s new defense secretary Carter described the Kurds the 'model' for fighting ISIL. And now, weeks after Ashton Carter describes the Kurds essential to the war effort his boss provides the Turks permission to attack PKK bases in Syria


So much for an American-neutralized “Islamic State” threat! So much for America’s flip-flop aims against the Assad regime!


There must be a rational explanation for Obama’s regional “strategy” but if so it eludes explanation. Standing by silently as Iranian students are murdered on the streets of Teheran protesting political corruption while later intervening with “regime change” when Egyptian students were only protesting the lack of employment opportunities? Providing a six-year window for Iran to progress from borderline nuclear program to a negotiated agreement recognizing Iran a nuclear threshold state? Laying down his “red line” in Syria then backing out while relying on Russia to save him from the embarrassment. Russia, for decades during the Cold War contesting America for control of the Middle East; for centuries coveting control of the Mediterranean Sea; Russia, if replacing the United States in the region will have replaced America also controlling the European subcontinent!  Yes, there must be a rational explanation for Obama’s regional “strategy.” It just eludes me.