What Really Drives Obama’s Destructive Mideast Policy?

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke10/9/15
It’s not a stretch to say that what ex-president Jimmy Carter did for Iran, Barack Obama is doing for the whole Middle East and beyond. Islamic State is on the move; jihadism in general is raging and all the rage; and with the Iran deal, the man who helped enable the “Arab Spring” may give us a nuclear winter.

A Mideast policy with such results has befuddled many. Why did Obama help overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and hurl Libya into turmoil? Why did he throw Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak under the bus? And why, as radio host Michael Savage asked late last week, does he have such a “vendetta” against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad?

It’s not enough to say that the Gaddafis and Assads of the world are bad men; the devil you know is often better than the devil you don’t know, and this certainly appears the case when turmoil and jihadists are the apparent alternatives to these strongmen’s rule. And Iran is governed by bad men, but Obama showed no interest in supporting dissidents there.

When analyzing the above, credulous liberals might say the president is merely interested in supporting “democracy,” some conservatives might explain it by way of incompetence, while yet others may aver that Muslim sympathies impel him to support jihadist causes. But the truth is perhaps a bit more nuanced, so let me suggest a different theory.

When discerning a person’s motivations, you must first consider what he is. Obama is a hardcore leftist, marinated in Marxism from his youth, raised by a leftist mother and grandparents and mentored by card-carrying Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis. He also belonged to the socialist New Party in 1990s Chicago and, according to a 2007 study, owned the Senate’s most left-wing voting record; this means he was ahead of even that body’s only avowed socialist, Bernie Sanders (who was number two).

Now, one thing we know about hardcore leftists is that they generally consider religion the “opiate of the masses.” This brings us to the idea, embraced by 29 percent of Americans and 43 percent of Republicans, that Obama is a Muslim. Question: is it realistic to think that Obama truly believes in God and that God’s name is Allah? Does his support for the homosexual agenda (including faux marriage), women in combat and “transgenders” in the military reflect Sharia?

The reality? Obama is a de facto atheist. He deifies himself more than anyone else. But there’s an important distinction here almost universally missed by liberals and conservatives: Obama isn’t religiously Muslim.

But there’s every indication he’s culturally Muslim.

Having lived in the Islamic country of Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10 with a Muslim stepfather, it’s likely that Obama’s earliest memories are of life in a Muslim culture. He also has characterized the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset” (and recites it with an authentic accent) and has avoided Christian events while trumpeting his Muslim heritage. Yet however much this influences his thinking, it pales in comparison to something else that characterizes him and virtually all leftists.

Hatred for the West.

In Obama’s narrow universe, the West is the cause of most evil in the world. The West is oppressive, destructive and poisons everything it touches. And for justice to prevail, Western institutions and influence must be quashed.

Now consider the Middle East’s modern history. Syria’s current borders were created by the West after the fall of the Ottomans, and the CIA covertly backed the Arab world’s first military coup in that nation in 1949. Italy seized Libya from the Ottoman Empire in the Italo-Turkish War in 1911-12; in fact, the name “Libya” itself was adopted by Italy in 1934 during its colonization of the region and originated with the ancient Greeks (the birthplace of Western civilization), who used it to describe all of North Africa apart from Egypt. As for Egypt, it was part of the Cold War geopolitical tussle, first allied with the Soviet Union and then switching allegiance to the U.S. under President Anwar Sadat. Also note that the Assad dynasty has long been supported by — and Gaddafi was a longtime ally of — the Soviet Union/Russia.

But wouldn’t a leftist such as Obama welcome Soviet influence? First, the leftist line was that the Soviets’ Cold War activities were designed mainly to counterbalance Western imperialism — the Soviets wouldn’t have been in the Middle East if we weren’t. More significantly with Obama, however, I believe that in one sense he doesn’t distinguish between the West and Russia, in that he views them both as the oppressive “white world” (especially since the U.S.S.R. is no more).

You no doubt see the point. The modern Middle East is largely a Western construct, with Western-drawn borders and Western-facilitated strongmen. Obama sees Western influence and creations as the bane of humanity.

Ergo, not only is the enemy of my ideological enemy my friend, but, whatever the “Arab Street” may be, it can’t be worse than the world’s most evil force: the West.

This also helps shed light on Obama’s apparent antipathy for Israel, which he would also view as a Western invention, and his refusal to support dissidents in Iran. Remember that the Iranian theocracy, born in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, already represents the overthrow of the Western Mideast order.

This theory certainly explains Obama’s actions. No, it would not be a rational motivation, but much of what animates man is irrational. This is especially true of leftists, who, disbelieving in and disconnected from Truth, are driven by emotional attachment to misbegotten ideas.

Nor would Obama likely heed cooler-heads’ counsel. He lives in the echo chamber of his own mind, considering others’ opinions superfluous; he’s the very antithesis of the saying “Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him.” Note that he arrogantly stated in 2007 not only that he’d be a better political director than his political director, but also “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. [And] I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Even more telling is a story related by economist and gun-rights advocate Dr. John Lott on Mark Levin’s radio show last Friday about the time when he and Obama were both in the University of Chicago’s employ. Obama didn’t attend the gatherings at which the staff exchanged ideas, except once, when he asked a fairly unintelligible question. Lott then saw Obama after the event and, trying to make friends and conversation, said (I’m paraphrasing), “You know, your question was interesting, but I think more people would have understood it if….” Lott never got to finish.

Because Obama, cold as ice, just turned his back.

And Obama long ago turned his back on reality and on the civilization that has given him everything. He hates the world’s Western-imposed order so much that he’s propelling the world toward disorder. And that’s the tragic result when you don’t realize that hatred is not a strategy.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com • (816 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to What Really Drives Obama’s Destructive Mideast Policy?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    An excellent analysis of the Mideast foreign policy of the worst president in American history. In essence, we have a toxic combination of standard academic leftism without any sort of reality check and a cultural affinity for Islam, and even the Muslim Brotherhood. Note that, when both the relatively harmless Gaddafi and the viciously harmful Assad were threatened, Obama chose to get rid of the former.

  2. Rosalys says:

    It makes me crazy to hear people say that Obama is a Christian. (The “Christians” I know that push this characterization tend to belong to churches that perform so-called homosexual weddings.) If “ye shall know them by their fruits,” then Obama has shown himself pretty hostile to Christianity and rather favorable toward Islam. But is he a Muslim? I’ve long thought that, religiously, he isn’t much of anything; atheism certainly fits nicely. But, since what he really seems to worship is himself, perhaps what we have is the founding of a new religion – Obamanism.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      A few years ago I wrote on these pages an article comparing Obama to Savonarola you can find it here http://www.stubbornthings.org/new-savonarola

      Obama is not in any way a Christian, yet he is also not Moslem, although as mentioned he is culturally more Moslem than anything else. Its going to take generations to undo the damage he has done to our republic.

  3. Ronald J. Ward says:

    Invoking the likes of Michael Savage as a credible source on any level to support your unhinged and radical conspiracy theory is indeed telling. But then, it’s hard to top that “marinated in Marxism” and “Obama is a de facto atheist” when it comes to jumping the shark on far right pitch fork and torches paranoia of the black man in the White House.

    I liked the one better about how those Muslims snuck him in as a baby so he could grow up, become President, and reward them by transforming America to tbeir standards, or, something.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’m very impressed by your artfulness in mocking an argument without making a single effort to refute a single argument. To be sure, you probably genuinely don’t realize that claiming that a source is unreliable (or, for that matter, a very good source) says nothing about the validity of the argument (another of those logical fallacies, in fact). You apparently used your time under the bridge well.

      • Ronald J. Ward says:

        I’ve come to learn Timothy, that reasoning with profound bigotry is simply too tall of an order, that arguments, either inductive or deductive, have no place in their world.

        Obviously, my main point once again flew over your head or you once again play willfully ignorant.

        I’ve painfully listened to Mike Savage radio rants in my travels and was always amazed at how he gave credence to his talking points by simply using voice inflictions when saying “Barack HUSSEIN Obama”, as if his pronunciation of Hussein somehow validated all of his attacks on the President. I can understand how the weak minded bigots can fall for such silliness and much like this forum, nod in agreement like trained seals in unison flapping their fins together and chanting “ork ork ork” but in the real world of adult deductive reasoning, it just doesn’t hold water.

        What it does, much like the birthers and flat earthers and the author of the above rant, is to remind everyone that Obama has Muslim background, that he came from a mixed race, has Kenya ancestry, and well, he just ain’t like us. And from that, the trained seals drink the koolade of the conspiracy theorist. And if anyone questions it, they’re promptly reintroduced to the birther claptrap or of the man’s name.

        • David Ray says:

          If we had Osama Bin Laden himself in the White House, I’m not sure what he would have done differently.

          Little Barry makes no attempt to mask his contempt for western culture.

  4. Timothy Lane says:

    Niall Ferguson discusses this today in the Wall Street Journal, which Hot Air provided a link to. For anyone interested, the link is:

    http://www.wsj.com/article_email/the-real-obama-doctrine-1444429036-lMyQjAxMTI1MjEwMDgxMTA1Wj

  5. David Ray says:

    [Question] How do you get flaming liberals to support nuclear proliferation?
    [Answer] Have a narcissist lunch-money-victim give-’em-away-now to America’s enemies.

  6. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The following link is to an excellent article which gives some background on why ISIS is in existence and who is backing them. The answers go back further than Obama and confirm, again, my belief that Saudi money is enormously corrupting.

    In the short term, it is a good thing that oil prices are down as this will, somewhat, constrain the Saud family’s ability to buy off a complacent, lazy population. But if the Saudi state runs out of money and, as a result, is not able to keep the populous fat and happy, some very nasty things could happen. Just try to imagine a group of clerics who push a barbaric 7th century belief coming into control of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. Being religious leaders, they would probably be less dependent on money to motivate their subjects and more on religious zeal.

    I fear some very bad things coming out of the Middle East in the not too distant future.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Iraq-crisis-How-Saudi-Arabia-helped-Isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country/articleshow/50064632.cms

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    After reading this article, can anyone serious deny that Obama and his clique’ are traitors to the USA?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/24/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-prisoner-release-236966

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’ve considered Barry Screwtape Obama a traitor ever since the Bowe Berglund deal.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I suspected he was a willing “Manchurian Candidate” from the beginning.

        I have no doubt, more such damning material will come out. I also have no doubt that the left will continue to idolize and support him.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The Obamanation might be culturally a Muslim and hate the USA, but the link below connects to another article which explains why the Iran deal was so easy for the Obamanation to get.

    http://www.startribune.com/iran-company-finalizes-deal-with-boeing-to-buy-60-planes/427632643/

    That’s 140 planes for Boeing and counting. Just the tip of the iceberg of the business which is being done.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It was an easy deal to make because in the end he just gave the Iranians whatever they wanted. They didn’t even have to ratify the deal, so they have no restrictions.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        But the deal should have been a treaty and the Senate agreed for the law to be written in such a way that advice and consent was not necessary. The Senate gave up part of its power. Wonder who was padding their pockets?

        Iran didn’t have to give up anything as it was never the Obamanation’s intent that it should. Avarice just greased the skids.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Boeing is (or was) a northwest company. Therefore anything the Iranians want is a-ok. I just hope they installed a secret kill switch in the software.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *