Obama ISIS 'Strategy' Bolsters Iranian Hegemony

Iran is no less dangerous than ISIS, so what is Obama doing?

Tags: Iraq IS
Dr. Joe Tuzara

OpEds Dr. Joe Tuzara
Dr. Joe Tuzara

The Obama administration's ambiguous 'bombing strategy' in Syria and Iraq is hardly going to achieve a decisive 'defeat' of the self-styled Sunni caliphateת but inadvertently will bolster Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the unstable Middle East.

Even when given the benefit of the doubt, President Barack Obama's strategy, driven  by public opinion, against the 'Islamic State' (ISIS/ISIL) is snookered by a lot of malarkey.

In a desperate attempt to regain lost credibility in time for mid-term elections, Obama's vague, ambivalent or even contradictory political statements have no efficacy against ISIS but are intended to save his morally bankrupt presidency.

It is only as a result of his rapidly sinking polls and the beheadings of Americans that Obama, for the first time was forced to reassure the nation of his understanding the dubious threat from ISIS.

It could be convincing except for one tiny caveat: just a few minutes after giving a somber speech on the beheading of two American journalists; Obama teed off on the golf course 'grinning and fist-bumping' - this was blatantly disrespectful, a sharp insult to American sensitivities.

And the ripple effects had a powerful impact that convinced Americans who witnessed such an uncaring reaction of the real policies of the Obama presidency.

More than likely, for many, this was the last 'straw that broke the camel's back.' And along with Benghazi scandal, Washington's focus on ISIS comes at the expense of the more urgent threat posed by a nuclear Iran.'

Obama's unending litany of broken promises, staggering incompetence and unprecedented betrayals cast serious doubts about his credibility to defeat ISIS.

Consistently apologizing for Islam, Obama's ridiculous broadcasting to the enemy all the things he is not going to do clearly undermines US military efforts to achieve their mission. In doing so, the risk-averse president has indicated he was not absolutely serious about defeatingt ISIS, despite claims to the contrary.

As much as the White House would like us to believe that there would be 'no boots on the ground', Kurdish military and intelligence sources confirm that US and German special operations forces are already “on the ground" and UK weapons shipments were sent to Kurdish Peshmerga forces.

And while there’s no doubt that many of us are confused by Obama’s patently misleading focus pm ISIS, his mismatched smorgasbord of tactics masquerading as 'strategy' are dumbfounding.

For example, although the Obama administration believes it can support what it says are moderate rebel forces in Syria to aid in the fight against ISIS, many critics warn that there may be no truly moderate force in the country of any significant strength.

An expert who traveled with Syrian rebels said the 'moderate' rebels in Syria the Obama administration has been touting are really Muslim Brotherhood-style Islamists openly aligned with al-Qaeda central and with al-Zawahiri [Osama bin Laden's deputy].

And herein lies the paradox in the president’s proposition: without boots on the ground to defeat ISIL, Washington is forced to rely on the tacit support of countries like Iran which, in other circumstances, are inimical to Western interests.

It is also rather difficult to understand why our arch-enemies, Iran [and Syria], needed prior notice about the impending attacks against ISIS and puts into question America's depth of commitment in fighting ISIS.

Consider  it a frantic struggle to do some semblance of 'wag the dog' in an election year, or consider it Obama's strategy to 'destroy and ultimately defeat' an offshoot of al Qaeda, likely to  rescue Iran from ISIS.

What is happening in Syria and Iraq is the greatest deception of all time: creating chaos via proxies is a massive distraction and huge opportunity for Iran to buy more time to build nuclear weapons.
Why does it matter? Because ISIS constitutes the greatest threat to Iran, rather than to the stronger militaries of America, Israel and the West.

In a real sense, Iran is no less dangerous than ISIS. It is also no secret to the intelligence community about Iran's involvement in 9/11 attacks and Iran's continuing harboring of al-Qaeda operations cells on its soil.

In fact, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah operatives are currently orchestrating the fighting in Syria and assisting Shiite-led Iraqi militias that are basically a proxy for Iran, responsible for thousands of American troops killed by Iran-made improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Notwithstanding those gritty realities, Obama's blatant appeasement and 'secret' back channel engagements with Iranian mullahs are a 'red flag' that say that no matter what happens after the November 24 deadline for a final nuclear deal; the self-serving, narcissistic president has no intention to convince the ayatollahs to abandon terrorism and Iran's disputed nuclear program.

Indeed, what is happening in Syria and Iraq is the greatest deception of all time: creating chaos via proxies is a massive distraction and huge opportunity for Iran to buy more time to build nuclear weapons.

Worse, Obama's counterterrorism strategy that forbids the FBI to use religion in identifying terror threats, as ISIS openly recruits in US mosques- does not actually fit into how to end all conventional wars on terror.

If the FBI we’re not allowed to define the enemy, how can they identify the enemy?

The 'terrorist organization calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is, in fact', ‘Islamic.’ ISIS relies on the fatwas of political Islam, and their barbaric and ruthless behaviors 'represent Islam in every way.'

Either unbelievably out of touch with reality and/or obfuscating truth, Obama's tenuous argument that America is safer today was misleading and/or deceptive because the United States is now under the greatest threat since 9/11.

Given that the  'relative risk to American [interests] is low', there can be no doubt that Obama is functionally aligning himself with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah..

Take, for example, the liberation of an Iraqi town near Amerili, where US airstrikes indirectly helped Iran's Hezbollah brigades. That would be seen as aligning with the Shiite leaderships in Baghdad and Damascus where Iran is indisputably a major player.

Intelligence sources also revealed that Obama’s war against ISIS based on the [Somalia] and  "Yemen model'' will not comprehensively defeat Al Qaeda but actually benefit Iran.

The truth is ugly and extremely cruel: Obama is to blame for the entire Syrian-Iraqi mess. And his profound Islamist Muslim Brotherhood sympathies make it difficult to defeat ISIS.

Furthermore, Obama's micro-managing to make all the bombing calls of ISIS targets in Syria is more problematic [and is doomed to failure].

If that weren't enough, it was actually President George W. Bush who accurately predicted in 2006 the establishment of a 'Caliphate' should the US withdraw from Iraq.

Maybe it was difficult to see or understand the bigger picture: but under Obama's watch ISIS has been able to broaden the global reach of their terror networks' considerably.

Unfortunately, it is just a matter of time before Iran, al Qaeda and ISIS winds up together into a global 'pan-Islamic alliance' against western civilization, threatening Israel.

As difficult it is to decipher the ISIS crisis, the disintegration of Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite autonomous states either living under the dark shadows of a Sunni Caliphate or a nuclear armed Iran is a possible outcome.

Unless Obama remarkably changes course or Israel intervenes, the prescient president's ineffective bombing campaign and reluctance to destroy the root causes of radical political Islam, make him ipso facto complicit in creating a 'balance of terror' in a volatile region where endless war is the norm.

Joe Tuzara, M.D. was clinical research-physician-general surgeon for Saudi Arabian, Philippine and American healthcare systems and is currently an American freelance writer as well as op-ed contributor.