SAUDI ARABIA, ISRAEL, IRAN, AND OBAMA. OH, AND YEMEN.
During Rush Limbaugh's show on November 17th, Rush cited Walid Phares' appearance on Fox News the previous day. The discussion centered on Phares' theory that Obama's actions, or lack thereof, can be completely explained by understanding that Iran's interests and Obama's are one. Here's the link.
PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.
And Rush goes on to agree:
RUSH: Shi'ite versus Sunni sectarian violence. But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to.
There's something very important to add to this thesis, and it reinforces the conclusion.
Yemen.
Let's go back to March and April when the following things were happening:
John Kerry was in the process of negotiating with Iran, and it appeared the Mullahs would be provided with a clear path to a nuclear future.
Iran at this time has successfully ousted the President of Yemen from his country with the aid of the former President al-Saleh, and Iranian Houthi proxies. Iranian influence is now on the Saudi frontier, with the capability of controlling oil flow through the straights. So now the Americans, having already abandoned the region, are giving the Mullahs the bomb? The Saudis panic. And justifiably so.
Within days, a coalition of Sunni Arab states forms, The Saudis, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, the Sudan, Oman, and others unite in rapid fashion, and assemble a functioning military coalition with the aim of attacking Yemen. Ousting the Iranians, and restoring Hadi, now residing in Riyadh, to power in Sanaa, is the goal.
Meanwhile, rumors are swirling that somehow Israel, whose issues now align perfectly with those of the Sunni Arab coalition, might even take part.
Now, it must be understood that bombing raids require mid-air refueling, so that the planes may take off with minimum fuel to enable the weight of the added bombs and armaments. Then the planes must be refueled mid-air, in order to complete the mission. There are only two countries in the region who have this capability-the US, and Israel.
The aerial bombardments begin, and we are told that the US is performing the pivotal task of enabling the mission by refueling the UAE and Saudi jets. This was all occurring while Kerry was in negotiations with the Iranians.
This had to be an affront to the Iranians, but they said nothing, and it had no effect on the talks. Why? It would have been used as a negotiating ploy by the Iranians, but it wasn't. Why not? Did they allow the Americans to aid the attack on their proxies in Yemen without saying a word?
Yemen was important to Iran. They had come a long way at great expense to oust Hadi and lay the groundwork for controlling the oil flow through the straits, and position themselves on Saudi Arabia's border.
Not a peep.
The Saudis will have had to make a formal request of Obama in order to gain the use of the tankers. Remember, Obama had abandoned the region, which created the void that resulted in the formation of a coalition from the rubble of the Arab League, where the members hadn't agreed on anything for decades.
And their issues now aligned with those of.......Israel.
Did the Saudis tell Obama that if he didn't help them, Bibi would? I have no doubt Israel would have jumped on such an opportunity.
Did Obama give the Iranians a heads-up, and a choice between possibly losing their foothold in Yemen or facing a Sunni-Arab coalition plus Israel?
Clearly, the Saudis and others considered an Iranian-held Yemen to be an existential issue. As did the Israelis. Wouldn't the Sunni states have been willing to offer Netanyahu air-space and logistics, if not military participation, for an Israeli raid on Iran? This could have been offered in exchange for help with refueling and perhaps other aid in dealing with the situation in Yemen.
It is just as clear that if Obama did give the Iranians a heads up, that the Mullahs consider the military alignment of the Sunni Arab Coalition with Israel to be equally existential.
Admittedly, this is a theory, but it fits the events, Walid and Rush's theory, and the motivations, the actions, or lack of actions of all the players, during this period. We know Obama is capable of perfidy, and proof that this is how it all went down would be "smoking gun" proof of treason, would it not?
PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.
And Rush goes on to agree:
RUSH: Shi'ite versus Sunni sectarian violence. But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to.
There's something very important to add to this thesis, and it reinforces the conclusion.
Yemen.
Let's go back to March and April when the following things were happening:
John Kerry was in the process of negotiating with Iran, and it appeared the Mullahs would be provided with a clear path to a nuclear future.
Iran at this time has successfully ousted the President of Yemen from his country with the aid of the former President al-Saleh, and Iranian Houthi proxies. Iranian influence is now on the Saudi frontier, with the capability of controlling oil flow through the straights. So now the Americans, having already abandoned the region, are giving the Mullahs the bomb? The Saudis panic. And justifiably so.
Within days, a coalition of Sunni Arab states forms, The Saudis, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, the Sudan, Oman, and others unite in rapid fashion, and assemble a functioning military coalition with the aim of attacking Yemen. Ousting the Iranians, and restoring Hadi, now residing in Riyadh, to power in Sanaa, is the goal.
Meanwhile, rumors are swirling that somehow Israel, whose issues now align perfectly with those of the Sunni Arab coalition, might even take part.
Now, it must be understood that bombing raids require mid-air refueling, so that the planes may take off with minimum fuel to enable the weight of the added bombs and armaments. Then the planes must be refueled mid-air, in order to complete the mission. There are only two countries in the region who have this capability-the US, and Israel.
The aerial bombardments begin, and we are told that the US is performing the pivotal task of enabling the mission by refueling the UAE and Saudi jets. This was all occurring while Kerry was in negotiations with the Iranians.
This had to be an affront to the Iranians, but they said nothing, and it had no effect on the talks. Why? It would have been used as a negotiating ploy by the Iranians, but it wasn't. Why not? Did they allow the Americans to aid the attack on their proxies in Yemen without saying a word?
Yemen was important to Iran. They had come a long way at great expense to oust Hadi and lay the groundwork for controlling the oil flow through the straits, and position themselves on Saudi Arabia's border.
Not a peep.
The Saudis will have had to make a formal request of Obama in order to gain the use of the tankers. Remember, Obama had abandoned the region, which created the void that resulted in the formation of a coalition from the rubble of the Arab League, where the members hadn't agreed on anything for decades.
And their issues now aligned with those of.......Israel.
Did the Saudis tell Obama that if he didn't help them, Bibi would? I have no doubt Israel would have jumped on such an opportunity.
Did Obama give the Iranians a heads-up, and a choice between possibly losing their foothold in Yemen or facing a Sunni-Arab coalition plus Israel?
Clearly, the Saudis and others considered an Iranian-held Yemen to be an existential issue. As did the Israelis. Wouldn't the Sunni states have been willing to offer Netanyahu air-space and logistics, if not military participation, for an Israeli raid on Iran? This could have been offered in exchange for help with refueling and perhaps other aid in dealing with the situation in Yemen.
It is just as clear that if Obama did give the Iranians a heads up, that the Mullahs consider the military alignment of the Sunni Arab Coalition with Israel to be equally existential.
Admittedly, this is a theory, but it fits the events, Walid and Rush's theory, and the motivations, the actions, or lack of actions of all the players, during this period. We know Obama is capable of perfidy, and proof that this is how it all went down would be "smoking gun" proof of treason, would it not?
posted by corndog at 6:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home