Unmasking Obama's Red Lines in the Middle East

Obama’s calculus on terrorism and his alleged unbreakable support for the State of Israel just don’t add up.

Dr. Joe Tuzara

OpEds Dr. Joe Tuzara
Dr. Joe Tuzara

The Obama administration's embarrassing diplomatic hesitation to act decisively against Iran's nuclear development and Syria's use of chemical weapons sent a clear message that Obama does not always have Israel's back.

Quite remarkably, Obama’s thin “red line” for Iran was never intended to be enforced. The oft-repeated blurring concept of red lines and contradictions by the Obama administration effectively undermine Israel's security and U.S. strategic interests.

At its core, Team Obama advisers are spinning an utterly false narrative filled with trinkets of treason and criminal activities by deliberately minimizing the role played by al-Qaeda-affiliated networks to illegal international arms trafficking in the Middle East.

The gobbledygook of inconsistency is profoundly revealing: Obama’s calculus on terrorism and his alleged unbreakable support for the State of Israel just don’t add up.

It is difficult to imagine that instead of putting more pressure on Iran, Obama is purposely undermining Israel not to launch an attack on Iran.

Apparently, Iran's bellicose rhetoric can be attributed mainly to Obama's secret concessions with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei otherwise suggesting that the U.S. would stay away in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

In the second letter sent via the Swiss Embassy, Obama have recognized Iran's nuclear capacity but admitted to Ali Khamenei that he has no choice but to support congressionally-mandated sanctions against the Islamic republic.

No matter the political outcome in this ongoing war, the basic thrust of Muslim Brotherhood-led Team Obama's security strategy was incredibly appalling, moronic and distressing.

Speculation aside, false flag deceptions and threats from the Obama administration to CIA whistleblowers from Benghazi to Boston are so outrageous that Americans do not want to know or have failed to see the larger picture.

For the first time ever in American history, the only superpower in the world has effectively lost its credibility because of a unique interplay of a U.S. president's pro-Marxist, pro-Islamist ideology and pathological narcissism.

In actuality, Obama's vagueness is a cruel gambit designed not to fight the forces of jihad. Obama was more worried about the perceived success of his unconstitutional military intervention in Libya than it was about risking American lives.

According to the Obama administration-dictated federal lexicon, use of the word terrorism is forbidden, particularly when the act in question was perpetrated by Muslims.

It is mindboggling. With the credibility of American policy at stake and a U.S. president with a propensity for deal-making bordering on treason at the expense of his own country, how could Israelis and liberal American Jews trust Obama?

Contrary to what the celebrity-funded mainstream media would like you to believe, it only reinforces our impression that Obama will not lift a finger to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

What game changer?

Indeed, Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a game changer for it would mark the second time since the Iran-Iraq War that a brutal regime has used them against their own people.

Evidently, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) unfettered access to Syria's bio-warfare complex (WND) constitutes a strategic threat to the State of Israel and the West.

Furthermore, Syria's deployment of chemical weapons under the oversight of the IRGC has become more complex in the prevalence of CIA-trained Al Qaeda jihadists in the Free Syrian Army, the main fighting arm of the rebellion.

Fundamentally speaking, Obama's doctrine of leading from behind is a diffident Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-inspired grand deception aimed at destabilizing secular regimes friendly to America.

Perhaps, there is nothing more we can do to uphold American values in the Islamist regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria; while in troubled Pakistan and Afghanistan the U.S. continues to bribe its way towards reconciliation with the Taliban.

Meanwhile, Iran views Syria as a bulwark against American and Israeli power. Iran's soft underbelly, Syria, has a very tight crucial link to Hizbullah in Lebanon. Interestingly, the Islamic republic cannot afford to lose its only ally in the Middle East; and as such the fall of Damascus would be a great blow to its regional hegemony and a coup de grace against Iran.

Arguably, liberal democracy will never flourish or gain a foothold in Islamist Syria. At any rate, the growing Al Qaeda franchise in Africa, sub-Saharan region and the Arabian Peninsula poses a grave threat to secular regimes in the Gulf in the post-Assad era.

Hence, the only alternative to secular Syria is an extremist Islamic state inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. Along this lines, political correctness demand the unexpected emergence of newly created Kurdish independent states from Syria, Iran and Iraq.

In the Israeli context, however, the destruction of the Al Assad regime from the outside would be insignificant unless Hizbullah and Iran were completely knocked down to their knees by an overwhelming power it cannot bear.

In retrospect, the reported Israeli surgical strike on a weapons convoy and a military research center for work on biological and chemical weapons without even entering Syrian air space was a brilliant Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) strategy.

In any event, surgical airstrikes or special forces on the ground would not prevent radical Islamists with ties to al Qaeda from obtaining some chemical weapons. In addition, sending troops deep into Syria for that matter would be too costly, risky and unwise.

Although the onus is now on Israel to break the Tehran-Damascus-Hizbullah axis; Israel has taken an impressive first step into the Syrian conflict as the IDF become the first pro-Western power to intervene in the Syrian war.

While Israel's survival is of paramount importance, as serious as it is- the brutal consequences of getting it wrong is better than not taking action at all against an ipso facto nuclear Iran.

After all, it is a lot better for Israel to take pre-emptive unilateral military action before it is too late. Israel should take care of its own problems, and ask questions later; rather than wait for U.S. help which might never come.

Needless to say, a nation that does not have the guts and the credibility to maintain what it says can neither contain nor successfully prevent a cascade of raging murderous conflicts.

By Joe Tuzara, M.D. Born in Manila, American by choice, the author is a former clinical research-physician-general surgeon for Saudi Arabian, Philippine and American healthcare systems and currently an American freelance writer as well as op-ed contributor.