Historians will look back and wonder how the U.S. not only allowed Iran to repeatedly assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies—but rewarded it for doing so.
Little mentioned in the US is that the American Embassy invited prominent suspected members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech. This was unheard of in Egypt and indicated the Egyptian government should tread carefully against them.
2 years later President Mubarak was overthrown, after 3 decades of supporting the US, paving the way for a Muslim Brotherhood government.
It seems Barack Obama, the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action, thought himself so clever he would bypass all US allies in the Middle East to form a new alliance with America's greatest enemy there, supplanting our allies.
Too clever by half. Best to frame that Harvard degree and take it with a grain of salt.
Not that this could have come as a surprise given Obama's long friendship with Palestinian extremist Rashid Khalidi and US terrorist Bill Ayers.
Were we waiting for the oceans to rise to meet us as we met each other, or something? Is Michelle still proud for the first time of her country after we managed to put a Communist America-hater in the Oval Office for 8 years?
It's almost beyond imagination how horrifically awful American policy has been towards Iran during the Obama and now Biden administrations. It defies rationality. Israel has the misfortune to be beholden to a nation that is incapable of formulating and carrying rational strategic policy. Netanyahu has made grotesque errors but in fairness to him this is a horrible hand he was given in 2009. American policy under Obama and Biden has been designed perfectly to strengthen Iran and weaken the entire west, including Israel. The sickest part is that the numbskulls in Washington even now STILL DON'T SEE IT and are urging on more of the same. It would be as if after Germany invaded Poland, Chamberlain held another Munich conference insisting that the most important thing was not to escalate.
Obama had a coherent world view. It is a sanitized version of the leftist hatred of the West and its dominant position in the world. I don't think Biden and Blinken believe this. I think they are stupid, incoherent, have no vision and no ability to learn from error and change course.
What is coherent about empowering Iran’s religious fanatics so they can threaten Israel and our other allies in the region? Biden is just continuing Obama’s destructive policies in the region.
Yes, so long as the Jew Haters in Dearborn are appeased.... When the real war starts on American soil, some current members of Congress are going to find themselves in a very difficult position.
All true, which means that Israel's existential peril is in its own hands. Iran's war against Israel began on Oct. 7 but, up until now, Iran was savvy enough to employ proxies to provide political cover against Israeli attack. Now, the mask is off. If Israel were to fail to use this opportunity to employ every effort to undermine and rid the world of this evil regime, the Israeli government would be guilty of malpractice regarding its highest duty, to safeguard its own citizenry.
This is a very American-concentric view of Iran. Rather than "appeasing" Iran, the U.S. set the stage for the Islamic State in working with Britain to back a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government and replace it with the Shah who was thoroughly Western-leaning. Iran/Persia has existed for eons longer than the U.S. or Britain and the Persian Empire stretched all the way across the Middle East/N. Africa all the way to Morocco and southern Spain. Iranian history is very deep, proud, and rich. It was the discovery of the Iranian oilfields that drew Europe and America into their history with tragic consequences.
"The August 1953 coup stemmed from U.S. fears over the Soviet Union increasingly wanting a piece of Iran as Communists agitated within the country. The ground had been laid partially by the British, who wanted to wrest back access to the Iranian oil industry, which had been nationalized earlier by Mossadegh.
Though looking initially like it failed, the coup toppled Mossadegh and cemented the power of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It also lit the fuse for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which saw the fatally ill shah flee Iran and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini usher in the theocracy that still governs the country."
Eisenhower, a moderate Republican, was President then and the Cold War with the Soviet Union was 'hot' at that time. The collapse of Western imperialism left the whole region in chaos and radical Islamic fascism emerged in Egypt and Palestine to fill the void. Iran came late to the party but meddling in their affairs by former colonists fanned the flames of anger and radicalism. To gain credibility in the Islamic world, Iran embraced anti-Western radical Islam while Arab nations were becoming more secular and Western. Egypt, who birthed the Muslim Brotherhood leading to other offshoots of radical Sunni Islam, outlawed the group and worked with the West to irradiate ISIS and other radical groups in the region.
The collapse of the Soviet Union took some of the pressure off and the West ignored Iran thinking it neutered by sanctions and no longer flirting with communism. The meddling in Iranian affairs switched to ignoring them as once proud Iran sank into inconsequence and Saudi Arabia and the other wealthy Gulf states took center stage. To gain relevance again, the Ayatollahs doubled down on radical Islam gathering groups of radicalized Sunnis to counter the Western influence in the region.
The Syrian War was essentially an Iranian proxy war teaming with Russia against the U.S. and the Saudis. It was a nasty affair with Syria left in ruins and both the Saudis and American routed. Iraq drew closer to Iran who was firmly in control throughout the region. Iran is supplying weapons to Russia for its assault on the West and is strengthening ties to China to circumvent Western sanctions. Iran is currently on a roll but punching higher than its class. Everyone (including Iranians) has backed away from the hope of changing Iran's extremism with appeasement. Until the Islamic Republic is overthrown Iran remains a pariah and a dangerous loose cannon in the region. It has become apparent that normal human relations are no match for religious zealotry and common sense is useless.
What then is the opposite of "appease?" Iran, like N. Korea, has become a rogue state. Whose responsibility is it to destroy and rebuild "lost" nations? The U.S. has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no desire to go down that road to nowhere again. It was General Douglas McArthur who cautioned: "Never get in a land war in Asia."
This common sense advice still stands and unless Iran really screws up, there is not much to do but to wait for change and to encourage our Arab allies to avoid becoming proxies in Iran's foolishness. The missile attack on Israel has put the spotlight on Iran's "shadow war" and the whole region now has to choose sides. Russia is sidelined in Ukraine so Iran is left alone trying to bully its neighbors into submission. This attack may be a huge mistake and lead to isolation and eventually domestic civil unrest. Iran may have failed to hit Israel but surely may have shot itself in the foot...
But we don't need to encourage their extremism. We can allow Israel to counterattack. We can enforce existing sanctions. We can stop sending them billions of dollars.
There's a lot between a land war in Asia and what we are currently doing.
There is an interesting article by Thomas Friedman of The NY Times discussing how a coalition of response from both Israel and Arab states against the threat of radical Islam spreading from Iran...
"Still, what happened Saturday is ultimately a significant boost for what I call the Inclusion Network in the Middle East (more open, connected countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel and the NATO allies) and a real setback for the Resistance Network (the closed and autocratic systems represented by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq) and Russia." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/opinion/israel-iran-attack.html
This is not simply about Israel but about Iran adopting Sunni Muslim Brotherhood's brand of radical Islam and using Sunni proxies to attack not only Israelis and Westerners but Sunni Muslims as well. The Iranian Revolutionary Forces want to regain dominance in the Middle East and Jerusalem no matter how many Jews and Sunnis must die in the process. Bringing the Iranian "Shadow War" out of the shadows exposes how few allies Iran has in the world or even within Iran.
You didn’t complete your last sentence. Either America stands with Israel or, status quo’s? Your entire article was wonderfully written and really articulated the whole scenario of what has occurred. But by your own words, it appears that America will not stand up to Iran, so where does this leave us?
It's obvious. Israel has to stop depending on the United States. What good are defensive weapons supplies if accepting them means perpetual defensive war?
Hmmm. I do not generally like tit for tat responses particularly such as this effused with Non determinable risk consequences and unintended outcomes. That said since the United States has loudly telegraphed its policy position on an Israeli rejoinder attack as is the Biden administration"s custom, Israel might request assurances from the US as to the continuing availability of ammunition including bullets, tank shells, mortar rounds, smart bombs, replacement anti missile ammunition for Iron Dome,,David's Sling, and air to air missiles. But if a response is deemed necessary, perhaps sinking the Iranian spy ship lurking in the Red Sea might suffice. I do not foresee any western or Sunni nation seriously objecting.
As long as Obama is the puppeteer, it’s not difficult to predict how the U.S. will lean. If the Military Industrial Complex can maximize profits, it will drawn out war.
Thank you, Michael for zooming out and allowing us to see the long arc of history and all the missteps. It makes the current situation much more understandable. Much appreciated! Would you be kind enough to write a follow-up article and tell us what you think are appropriate actions that should be taken in response?
I don’t believe Carter handled Iran well, but we can’t blame him for the Islamic Revolution. That was a reaction to the Shah’s brutal reign. What’s interesting is that the Iranian people dumped one murderous dictator for even worse murderous dictators.
President Eisenhower did not "appease" the Mullahs; he empowered them. Perhaps you're too young.
But I've yet to talk/read anything from Israel who doesn't blame Everything on Obama. He made as many mistakes in the Middle East as many other US Presidents.
It’s all on Obama and his fascination l, or lice affair, with the mullahs, and his hatred of Israel. Vernon Jordan, Iran sycophant, was an early Obama mentor. Jordan, Valerie’s FIL, supported Iran during the hostage crisis. I interviewed him back then and was astounded by his hatred for America and the West.
The press did a terrible job of vetting Obama. Come hell or high water they were going to push him into the WH.
I believe both Bushs changed the paradigm in the Middle East; wholly destabilized it.
Bush the Elder sending weapons to the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Those were the weapons Osama bin Laden & followers used against the US in Afghanistan.
And American support--billions of dollars in weapons to the Baath Party during the Iran-Iraq War did much more to "change the paradigm" than anything Obama did.
Since Hamas first fired rockets into Israel in 2006--Bush the Younger was President--it beggars belief that it's Obama and Biden's policies are the reason Hamas (and Hezbollah) has almsot continually attacked Israel from 2006 through 2023.
& Bush defended Israel's right to make war on Gaza.at the time. He refused to tell Israel to w./ draw their troops. Bush was being pressured to do just that.
The President of the US "refused to tell" another sovereign country that had been attacked to withdraw their defensive troops.
Why on Earth do you believe the President of the US can "tell" another sovereign country--an ally--to stand down after they have been attacked?
The President of the US stated the allied country had been attacked and acknowledged they had the right to defend themselves.
Why on Earth do you believe the President of the US would state an allied, sovereign country would deny that that country has the right to defend itself?
Israel is not a territory of the US like Puerto Rico or Guam. Biden can decide to withhold further aid and weaponry to the allied country that has been attacked, but that hasn't happened since before World War I.
ME diplomats who've been around a while--Richard Haas who was in both Republican & Democratic Administrations--think it was George HW Bush providing arms to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1970 that did the most to empower Iran and destabilize the region.
It’s your opinion. Decades-long US diplomat in the ME, Richard Haas, has his. I choose to believe the one who has been intimately involved in this since Bush the Elder.
Nonsense. Mullahs? Eisenhower? The Mullahs came to power in 1979. Obama took 30 years of US policy of seeing Iran as a strategic threat and turned it upsde down. Bush made mistakes. Carter made mistakes. Reagan made mistakes. Clinton made mistakes. Obama did what he intended to do.
Eisenhower forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, instantly making Egypt's Nasser into a hero of the Arab world. The consequences were felt for 20 years.
Carter's ineptitude led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, turning one of America's strongest allies in the world into the Iran we see today.
There's mistakes and then there's strategic errors on a massive scale. Eisenhower, Carter and Obama fall into that second group.
The Soviet Union was threatening nuclear war in 56. Eisenhower had no choice. Carter made terrible errors but they weren't strategic. Obama stands alone for deliberately empowering the Mullahs.
Deposing the legally elected leader of Iran to re-impose the Shah on the citizens of Iran was a very deliberate action on the part of the US, and directly empowered the Mullahs being able to return to Iran from exile ito be in charge.
In 1953, The US & Britain colluded to get rid of the democratically elected Prime Minister in favor of strengthening the monarchy and restoring the Shah to full & complete power.
Iran (Persia) was primarily a monarchy for 2,500 years.
JFK decision in early 1963 to give the Shah of Iran full backing in dealing with Islamic fundamentalists in Shiraz allowed him to send in his security forces, tear them out root and branch and remain in power for another 15 years.
The best possible result for the US, and for the people of Iran. All thanks to the strategic wisdom of JFK in handling the 1963 Shiraz riots.
The excesses of the Shah of Iran and his family are WHY "the people of Iran" revolted against the Shah--"the people of Iran" threw the Shah out of power, out of the country, and INVITED the Mullah to return to Iran from London.
What is "the best possible result for the US" was clearly NOT the best possible result for "the people of Iran" since they revolted and got rid of the Shah.
Nope, no evidence at all the Soviet threatening nuclear war over Egypt as they didn't have a foothold in the Middle East yet, until Eisenhower gave it to them for the sake of his reelection bid that year.
Carter's errors weren't strategic? Seriously? Allowing the Mullahs to take over one of America's strongest allies, Iran, is not a strategic error? Have you read any news about the Middle East recently?
He didn't allow the Mullahs to take over. The reforms he demanded of the Shah led to it. His policy was mistaken but it wasnt deliberate. Obviously . It's different than Obama who deliberately strengthened the Mullahs as a matter of policy. You are also wrong about Eisenhower. He was very unfriendly to Israel overall but the real reason for his reaction was Soviet threats not of nuclear war.but of escalation and anger at Britain and France for acting without American approval. Nasser was already leaning toward the Soviet bloc then. That's why he did it.
Nonsense: Carter repeatedly warned the Shah, in public during 1978, not to use force against Islamic demonstrators. If the consequences weren't deliberate, that's a strategic error. JFK never made that
Eisenhower forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, instantly making Egypt's Nasser into a hero of the Arab world. The consequences were felt for 20 years.
Carter's ineptitude led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, turning one of America's strongest allies in the world into the Iran we see today.
There's mistakes and then there's strategic errors on a massive scale. Eisenhower, Carter and Obama fall into that second group.
It was the Shah's ineptitude, not Carter's, which lead to his downfall. The Shah pushed too hard for a return to Old Persia imperialism and tried to push Islam aside. Iranians at the time had alternative choices of atheist Soviet communism or a revolutionary Islamic Republic. The rest is history...
The U.S. State Dept. has long held a bias against Israel. And the Biden Administration basically has Iranian agents working for it like Malley and the guy featured in this report:
You can’t make this stuff up. Even if Obama wanted to cultivate new allies in the ME, the Iranians have proven consistently and dangerously hostile to the U. S. and its existing allies. At some point wouldn’t you shift gears or reverse course when the nation you are cultivating with bribes and sanction relief kills your soldiers and calls you the great Satan? It’s unbelievably stupid to help Iran create nuclear weapons.
I suggest we stop appeasing all foreign interests, Iranian and otherwise. How about that? Let all other nations stand on their own feet and the US can stand on its own as well. It won’t ever happen by rational action(because, filthy lucre), but it might happen by unfortunate circumstance before too long.
"That June, in his historic Cairo speech, Obama "
Little mentioned in the US is that the American Embassy invited prominent suspected members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech. This was unheard of in Egypt and indicated the Egyptian government should tread carefully against them.
2 years later President Mubarak was overthrown, after 3 decades of supporting the US, paving the way for a Muslim Brotherhood government.
It seems Barack Obama, the greatest beneficiary of affirmative action, thought himself so clever he would bypass all US allies in the Middle East to form a new alliance with America's greatest enemy there, supplanting our allies.
Too clever by half. Best to frame that Harvard degree and take it with a grain of salt.
Not that this could have come as a surprise given Obama's long friendship with Palestinian extremist Rashid Khalidi and US terrorist Bill Ayers.
But Obama still hailed as a celebrity hero by the elite Dems and other celebrities. Stupidity is rampant with the left.
"This is the time we slowed the rise of the oceans" and other Obama quotes that the elite Dems just lapped up
Were we waiting for the oceans to rise to meet us as we met each other, or something? Is Michelle still proud for the first time of her country after we managed to put a Communist America-hater in the Oval Office for 8 years?
You are exactly correct about everything. Well written.
Thank you!
Anger and disappointment did the writing...
Exactly.
It's almost beyond imagination how horrifically awful American policy has been towards Iran during the Obama and now Biden administrations. It defies rationality. Israel has the misfortune to be beholden to a nation that is incapable of formulating and carrying rational strategic policy. Netanyahu has made grotesque errors but in fairness to him this is a horrible hand he was given in 2009. American policy under Obama and Biden has been designed perfectly to strengthen Iran and weaken the entire west, including Israel. The sickest part is that the numbskulls in Washington even now STILL DON'T SEE IT and are urging on more of the same. It would be as if after Germany invaded Poland, Chamberlain held another Munich conference insisting that the most important thing was not to escalate.
It is almost like Comrade Barry and Hair Sniffer are on someone else's payroll....
We don’t know yet for sure, but someday it will be clear as day.
You forgot to mention that Obama hosted the Muslim Brotherhood at the White House. Biden thinks that throwing money at situations improves them.
Obama had a coherent world view. It is a sanitized version of the leftist hatred of the West and its dominant position in the world. I don't think Biden and Blinken believe this. I think they are stupid, incoherent, have no vision and no ability to learn from error and change course.
Well Biden was never his own man. He is just a mouthpiece for the party. It’s worked out well for him and is a disaster for us.
What is coherent about empowering Iran’s religious fanatics so they can threaten Israel and our other allies in the region? Biden is just continuing Obama’s destructive policies in the region.
Because Biden never earned any money; sucked the
teat of America; grifted from family and doesn’t know that the private sector is the heart of financial world.
Obama took his cut of all money thrown.
Biden appears to be the the new Chamberlain. Peace in our time and let’s keep Michigan happy!
Yes, so long as the Jew Haters in Dearborn are appeased.... When the real war starts on American soil, some current members of Congress are going to find themselves in a very difficult position.
All true, which means that Israel's existential peril is in its own hands. Iran's war against Israel began on Oct. 7 but, up until now, Iran was savvy enough to employ proxies to provide political cover against Israeli attack. Now, the mask is off. If Israel were to fail to use this opportunity to employ every effort to undermine and rid the world of this evil regime, the Israeli government would be guilty of malpractice regarding its highest duty, to safeguard its own citizenry.
Iran’s war against Israel began in 1979. The IRGC has funded terrorism on Israel’s doorstep and worldwide.
This is a very American-concentric view of Iran. Rather than "appeasing" Iran, the U.S. set the stage for the Islamic State in working with Britain to back a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government and replace it with the Shah who was thoroughly Western-leaning. Iran/Persia has existed for eons longer than the U.S. or Britain and the Persian Empire stretched all the way across the Middle East/N. Africa all the way to Morocco and southern Spain. Iranian history is very deep, proud, and rich. It was the discovery of the Iranian oilfields that drew Europe and America into their history with tragic consequences.
"The August 1953 coup stemmed from U.S. fears over the Soviet Union increasingly wanting a piece of Iran as Communists agitated within the country. The ground had been laid partially by the British, who wanted to wrest back access to the Iranian oil industry, which had been nationalized earlier by Mossadegh.
Though looking initially like it failed, the coup toppled Mossadegh and cemented the power of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It also lit the fuse for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which saw the fatally ill shah flee Iran and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini usher in the theocracy that still governs the country."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-1953-cia-backed-coup-in-iran-continues-to-complicate-and-keep-tensions-high-with-u-s
Eisenhower, a moderate Republican, was President then and the Cold War with the Soviet Union was 'hot' at that time. The collapse of Western imperialism left the whole region in chaos and radical Islamic fascism emerged in Egypt and Palestine to fill the void. Iran came late to the party but meddling in their affairs by former colonists fanned the flames of anger and radicalism. To gain credibility in the Islamic world, Iran embraced anti-Western radical Islam while Arab nations were becoming more secular and Western. Egypt, who birthed the Muslim Brotherhood leading to other offshoots of radical Sunni Islam, outlawed the group and worked with the West to irradiate ISIS and other radical groups in the region.
The collapse of the Soviet Union took some of the pressure off and the West ignored Iran thinking it neutered by sanctions and no longer flirting with communism. The meddling in Iranian affairs switched to ignoring them as once proud Iran sank into inconsequence and Saudi Arabia and the other wealthy Gulf states took center stage. To gain relevance again, the Ayatollahs doubled down on radical Islam gathering groups of radicalized Sunnis to counter the Western influence in the region.
The Syrian War was essentially an Iranian proxy war teaming with Russia against the U.S. and the Saudis. It was a nasty affair with Syria left in ruins and both the Saudis and American routed. Iraq drew closer to Iran who was firmly in control throughout the region. Iran is supplying weapons to Russia for its assault on the West and is strengthening ties to China to circumvent Western sanctions. Iran is currently on a roll but punching higher than its class. Everyone (including Iranians) has backed away from the hope of changing Iran's extremism with appeasement. Until the Islamic Republic is overthrown Iran remains a pariah and a dangerous loose cannon in the region. It has become apparent that normal human relations are no match for religious zealotry and common sense is useless.
What then is the opposite of "appease?" Iran, like N. Korea, has become a rogue state. Whose responsibility is it to destroy and rebuild "lost" nations? The U.S. has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no desire to go down that road to nowhere again. It was General Douglas McArthur who cautioned: "Never get in a land war in Asia."
This common sense advice still stands and unless Iran really screws up, there is not much to do but to wait for change and to encourage our Arab allies to avoid becoming proxies in Iran's foolishness. The missile attack on Israel has put the spotlight on Iran's "shadow war" and the whole region now has to choose sides. Russia is sidelined in Ukraine so Iran is left alone trying to bully its neighbors into submission. This attack may be a huge mistake and lead to isolation and eventually domestic civil unrest. Iran may have failed to hit Israel but surely may have shot itself in the foot...
But we don't need to encourage their extremism. We can allow Israel to counterattack. We can enforce existing sanctions. We can stop sending them billions of dollars.
There's a lot between a land war in Asia and what we are currently doing.
There is an interesting article by Thomas Friedman of The NY Times discussing how a coalition of response from both Israel and Arab states against the threat of radical Islam spreading from Iran...
"Still, what happened Saturday is ultimately a significant boost for what I call the Inclusion Network in the Middle East (more open, connected countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Israel and the NATO allies) and a real setback for the Resistance Network (the closed and autocratic systems represented by Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq) and Russia." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/14/opinion/israel-iran-attack.html
This is not simply about Israel but about Iran adopting Sunni Muslim Brotherhood's brand of radical Islam and using Sunni proxies to attack not only Israelis and Westerners but Sunni Muslims as well. The Iranian Revolutionary Forces want to regain dominance in the Middle East and Jerusalem no matter how many Jews and Sunnis must die in the process. Bringing the Iranian "Shadow War" out of the shadows exposes how few allies Iran has in the world or even within Iran.
https://johnhardman.substack.com/p/israel-iran-war-second-nekba
You didn’t complete your last sentence. Either America stands with Israel or, status quo’s? Your entire article was wonderfully written and really articulated the whole scenario of what has occurred. But by your own words, it appears that America will not stand up to Iran, so where does this leave us?
It's obvious. Israel has to stop depending on the United States. What good are defensive weapons supplies if accepting them means perpetual defensive war?
Hmmm. I do not generally like tit for tat responses particularly such as this effused with Non determinable risk consequences and unintended outcomes. That said since the United States has loudly telegraphed its policy position on an Israeli rejoinder attack as is the Biden administration"s custom, Israel might request assurances from the US as to the continuing availability of ammunition including bullets, tank shells, mortar rounds, smart bombs, replacement anti missile ammunition for Iron Dome,,David's Sling, and air to air missiles. But if a response is deemed necessary, perhaps sinking the Iranian spy ship lurking in the Red Sea might suffice. I do not foresee any western or Sunni nation seriously objecting.
There are options to dramatic military action. On the other hand, military action sends a louder message.
To have been a fly on the wall as Israeli leaders debated this.
As long as Obama is the puppeteer, it’s not difficult to predict how the U.S. will lean. If the Military Industrial Complex can maximize profits, it will drawn out war.
Thank you, Michael for zooming out and allowing us to see the long arc of history and all the missteps. It makes the current situation much more understandable. Much appreciated! Would you be kind enough to write a follow-up article and tell us what you think are appropriate actions that should be taken in response?
Its discouraging really that Biden and Obama have been so clueless on Iran
Clueless or purposeful?
It goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter and the CIA.
I don’t believe Carter handled Iran well, but we can’t blame him for the Islamic Revolution. That was a reaction to the Shah’s brutal reign. What’s interesting is that the Iranian people dumped one murderous dictator for even worse murderous dictators.
They chose not to vette, Barack the manic negro.
President Eisenhower did not "appease" the Mullahs; he empowered them. Perhaps you're too young.
But I've yet to talk/read anything from Israel who doesn't blame Everything on Obama. He made as many mistakes in the Middle East as many other US Presidents.
No, I believe that Obama changed the paradigm in the Middle East. That doesn’t seem to be working out too well for anyone but the Iranians.
It’s all on Obama and his fascination l, or lice affair, with the mullahs, and his hatred of Israel. Vernon Jordan, Iran sycophant, was an early Obama mentor. Jordan, Valerie’s FIL, supported Iran during the hostage crisis. I interviewed him back then and was astounded by his hatred for America and the West.
The press did a terrible job of vetting Obama. Come hell or high water they were going to push him into the WH.
I believe both Bushs changed the paradigm in the Middle East; wholly destabilized it.
Bush the Elder sending weapons to the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Those were the weapons Osama bin Laden & followers used against the US in Afghanistan.
And American support--billions of dollars in weapons to the Baath Party during the Iran-Iraq War did much more to "change the paradigm" than anything Obama did.
Iran has been using the money Obama and Biden have given them to destabilize the ME and beyond. The EU has also played a role in financing Iran.
It’s no accident that within a short time of Biden’s largesse, Iran financed Hamas attacked Israel.
We need to cut off Iran’s oil and gas as well.
The Bush family did more to empower Iran’s rival, Saudi Arabia, than they did to help Iran.
Since Hamas first fired rockets into Israel in 2006--Bush the Younger was President--it beggars belief that it's Obama and Biden's policies are the reason Hamas (and Hezbollah) has almsot continually attacked Israel from 2006 through 2023.
& Bush defended Israel's right to make war on Gaza.at the time. He refused to tell Israel to w./ draw their troops. Bush was being pressured to do just that.
The President of the US "refused to tell" another sovereign country that had been attacked to withdraw their defensive troops.
Why on Earth do you believe the President of the US can "tell" another sovereign country--an ally--to stand down after they have been attacked?
The President of the US stated the allied country had been attacked and acknowledged they had the right to defend themselves.
Why on Earth do you believe the President of the US would state an allied, sovereign country would deny that that country has the right to defend itself?
Israel is not a territory of the US like Puerto Rico or Guam. Biden can decide to withhold further aid and weaponry to the allied country that has been attacked, but that hasn't happened since before World War I.
LOL Obama gave Iraq over to Iran.
ME diplomats who've been around a while--Richard Haas who was in both Republican & Democratic Administrations--think it was George HW Bush providing arms to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War in the 1970 that did the most to empower Iran and destabilize the region.
But believe whatever you want.
What I believe is a fact.
It’s your opinion. Decades-long US diplomat in the ME, Richard Haas, has his. I choose to believe the one who has been intimately involved in this since Bush the Elder.
I don’t blame “everything” on Obama. We cannot forget Jimmy Carter’s role in empowering the Ayatollah.
Nonsense. Mullahs? Eisenhower? The Mullahs came to power in 1979. Obama took 30 years of US policy of seeing Iran as a strategic threat and turned it upsde down. Bush made mistakes. Carter made mistakes. Reagan made mistakes. Clinton made mistakes. Obama did what he intended to do.
Eisenhower forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, instantly making Egypt's Nasser into a hero of the Arab world. The consequences were felt for 20 years.
Carter's ineptitude led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, turning one of America's strongest allies in the world into the Iran we see today.
There's mistakes and then there's strategic errors on a massive scale. Eisenhower, Carter and Obama fall into that second group.
The Soviet Union was threatening nuclear war in 56. Eisenhower had no choice. Carter made terrible errors but they weren't strategic. Obama stands alone for deliberately empowering the Mullahs.
Every President has a choice.
Deposing the legally elected leader of Iran to re-impose the Shah on the citizens of Iran was a very deliberate action on the part of the US, and directly empowered the Mullahs being able to return to Iran from exile ito be in charge.
The leader of Iran was not democratically elected
In 1953, The US & Britain colluded to get rid of the democratically elected Prime Minister in favor of strengthening the monarchy and restoring the Shah to full & complete power.
Iran (Persia) was primarily a monarchy for 2,500 years.
JFK decision in early 1963 to give the Shah of Iran full backing in dealing with Islamic fundamentalists in Shiraz allowed him to send in his security forces, tear them out root and branch and remain in power for another 15 years.
The best possible result for the US, and for the people of Iran. All thanks to the strategic wisdom of JFK in handling the 1963 Shiraz riots.
Carter and Obama lacked that strategic wisdom.
The excesses of the Shah of Iran and his family are WHY "the people of Iran" revolted against the Shah--"the people of Iran" threw the Shah out of power, out of the country, and INVITED the Mullah to return to Iran from London.
What is "the best possible result for the US" was clearly NOT the best possible result for "the people of Iran" since they revolted and got rid of the Shah.
Nope, no evidence at all the Soviet threatening nuclear war over Egypt as they didn't have a foothold in the Middle East yet, until Eisenhower gave it to them for the sake of his reelection bid that year.
Carter's errors weren't strategic? Seriously? Allowing the Mullahs to take over one of America's strongest allies, Iran, is not a strategic error? Have you read any news about the Middle East recently?
He didn't allow the Mullahs to take over. The reforms he demanded of the Shah led to it. His policy was mistaken but it wasnt deliberate. Obviously . It's different than Obama who deliberately strengthened the Mullahs as a matter of policy. You are also wrong about Eisenhower. He was very unfriendly to Israel overall but the real reason for his reaction was Soviet threats not of nuclear war.but of escalation and anger at Britain and France for acting without American approval. Nasser was already leaning toward the Soviet bloc then. That's why he did it.
"He didn't allow the Mullahs to take over"
Nonsense: Carter repeatedly warned the Shah, in public during 1978, not to use force against Islamic demonstrators. If the consequences weren't deliberate, that's a strategic error. JFK never made that
Iran was friendly to the West until the Islamic Revolution. In fact, they were friendly to Israel.
Yes that is true. On Carter's watch a major strategic ally became a horrible enemy.
Eisenhower forced Britain, France and Israel to withdraw after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, instantly making Egypt's Nasser into a hero of the Arab world. The consequences were felt for 20 years.
Carter's ineptitude led to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, turning one of America's strongest allies in the world into the Iran we see today.
There's mistakes and then there's strategic errors on a massive scale. Eisenhower, Carter and Obama fall into that second group.
It was the Shah's ineptitude, not Carter's, which lead to his downfall. The Shah pushed too hard for a return to Old Persia imperialism and tried to push Islam aside. Iranians at the time had alternative choices of atheist Soviet communism or a revolutionary Islamic Republic. The rest is history...
The U.S. State Dept. has long held a bias against Israel. And the Biden Administration basically has Iranian agents working for it like Malley and the guy featured in this report:
https://open.substack.com/pub/andmagazine/p/want-to-know-why-our-policy-now-favors?r=1lnuf2&utm_medium=ios
You can’t make this stuff up. Even if Obama wanted to cultivate new allies in the ME, the Iranians have proven consistently and dangerously hostile to the U. S. and its existing allies. At some point wouldn’t you shift gears or reverse course when the nation you are cultivating with bribes and sanction relief kills your soldiers and calls you the great Satan? It’s unbelievably stupid to help Iran create nuclear weapons.
I suggest we stop appeasing all foreign interests, Iranian and otherwise. How about that? Let all other nations stand on their own feet and the US can stand on its own as well. It won’t ever happen by rational action(because, filthy lucre), but it might happen by unfortunate circumstance before too long.