Syria, Turkey: Russia’s influence and the US election! Or: Would re-electing Obama force US military action?

14 Oct

Re-electing Barak Obama would send signals to Muslim nations that US appeasement policy would remain, and both Islamic nations, and their handlers, the Russians would push the US to the brink. Unless Barak Obama, goes on record before the election and establish a new formal policy that would inform all about new US resolve to stop aggressions by the likes of Syria (against Turkey, as well as internally,) and Iran with its nuclear programs, one can rest assured that shortly after being sworn to a second term, military conflicts WILL erupt.

Since assuming a new harder line by the Administration would conflict with Obama’s core [political] support from the left; making the necessary changes to keep new military action for starting in early 2013 are not on the agenda. A new Obama Administration, should one be put in place, would be a precursor to unplanned new military conflicts.

The situation in the Middle Eastern and North Africa, under the Obama doctrine had deteriorated to the point that endangers the stability of the world.
For obvious political reasons the US left Iraq without fully preparing the al-Maliki government to govern and keep the country secure. The departure from Iraq allowed Iran to include the Baghdad regime in its list of clients, but it goes deeper.
The subject is so important that an in-depth review with a great deal of supporting evidence is in order, this is not the form for such review, so let me over my broad-brush overview of the region.
It starts with Russia. Papa Bear has a sphere of influence, a number of clients, all with their own surrogates in the Muddle East. Russia’s principal client is Iran.
Syria, both directly, and with Iran as a conduit, is one of Russia’s major clients; it does not want Assad to fall. Through Syria, Russia, again both directly, and through Iran, takes care and more or less directs Hamas, and Hezbollah; both with large footprints in Syria.
Moving right along to the North Africa connection. When the Arab Springs event took place, the United States misread the action, the Clinton Administration thought that it was a move towards democracy, when in reality it was a more towards expanding Sharia rule. The US in it zeal “led from behind” an effort to support the North Africa revolt, and then, on September 11, 2012 was given a clear message that it created a monster.
North Africa, the Arab Middle East, and Iran, make up an area were Islam intends to prosper, an area where Russia, in its wisdom and political instinct, is essentially manipulating, if not outright controlling.
The move towards stronger Islamic rule in the region got a push when President Barak Obama gave his Cairo speech to the Islamic world. The likes of Ahmadinejad, and his Ayatollahs read it to mean that the United States under Barak Obama would allow Islam a degree of freedom that it did not have for many years under previous Administrations, including that of Bill Clinton. It was not a Democratic “license,” but rather one directly associated with President Obama.
Moving on to Turkey, a relatively democratic country under the US, and NATO sphere of influence. Since Turkey does not fall under the Russian umbrella, a Syrian Turkish confrontation in the midst of the Syrian revolt may just is what Mr. Putin desires.
The Russians do not want Assad removed since he is their main conduit to the control of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the eventual Palestinian State, if ever ones materialize.
Many laughed at Mitt Romney when he said that Russia is the United States main foe in the world, after all, foreign policy is not the man’s forte, and the Russian front seems quite. Either Romney had information other did not, had an instinct, or made a lucky call, Russia is in the process of rising from the ashes and revealing its true self.
Not being clairvoyant, and because the situation is extremely dynamic and could be changed dramatically with the US elections, let me simply state that Russia does indeed want to remain the principal controlling in the Islamic World. Iran’s nuclear program, for example, is actually manipulated by the Russians, both through technical, and economic resources. Should Iran decide to indeed use its nuclear capability for peaceful purposes it would be the Russians who would supply Iran with its nuclear fuel. Assad’s actions, especially in drawing Turkey into the conflict, could not have taken place without Russia’s blessing, as did the events in North Africa. Let me also add that al-Zawahri success is in large part due to Russian resources, and the death of bin Laden represented only one life of the nine lives of al Qaeda.

Dan Goor Let me suggest that regardless who is installed in the Oval Office in 2013, the person would be facing tremendous problems in the international arena, problems that would require tremendous internal fortitude, diplomatic skill, but most of all RESOLVE! Whoever is elected is going to have to step into the Islamic/Russian arena ready to make hard decisions, decisions that would be unpopular with the American public since they are likely to involve the use of military assets. The trigger to United States action may lie with the situation in Turkey. Should that arena be opened up beyond its present uneasy state, would the US with its mutual defense agreement openly come to the aid of that ally?
“Syria is burning,” Assad already slaughtered about 25,000 civilians, rapidly approaching his father’s 30,000, is the Western World standing by because it is in the best interests of Russia to keep Assad in power? Would the re-election of President Obama send a signal to Russia, Iran and Syria, that they can continue with their evil deeds unabated, or should President Obama use the very little time remaining until the election to go on record and tell the world that the US will get involved to stop the slaughter?
America’s young President is facing an enormous moral dilemma. Should Barak Obama go on record before the election and make it clear that the United States would use whatever is necessary to stop the conflict in Syria, stop Iran’s nuclear program, and generally put a stop to inhumane behavior around the world. Should Barak Obama make such declaration he is likely to lose a great of [political] support from the left, his principal source of power; or should he remain on the sideline and leave an untenable situation for whoever takes office in 2013?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: