Obama’s Arab Summit: Prelude to a Backstabbing

Right From the Start

Right From the Start

Last week President Barack Obama assembled his ill-fated “summit” with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman.) Because of the distrust in Mr. Obama held by most of these leaders only two of the six leaders actually attended. So overt was this snub of Mr. Obama that Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Issa al-Khalifa cancelled his attendance in favor of joining Britain’s Queen Elizabeth for a horse show.

The purpose of the meeting was ostensibly to garner support from GCC members for Mr. Obama’s current negotiations with Iran over its development of nuclear weapons. In fact, it was a clumsy attempt to bully those leaders into accepting an agreement that they all know will be violated routinely by Iran and which violations will be ignored by Mr. Obama. They all knew it and thus avoided wasting their time listening to Mr. Obama monopolize the conversation prior to the inevitable photo op.  These men understand that when Mr. Obama is speaking he is simply telling them what he thinks they want to hear with no intention whatsoever of actually following through on it.

But Mr. Obama labored on, meeting with lesser lights from these gulf nations. Still he failed to garner any meaningful support for the Iran negotiations. Instead, as reported by US News & World Report, on Monday:

“The joint statement ‘emphasized that a comprehensive, verifiable deal that fully addresses the regional and international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program is in the security interests of GCC member states as well as the United States and the international community.’”

Wow! That is the moral equivalent of stating that ceasing to beat your spouse is a key to the best interests of a marriage. Maybe theycould promise to do good and avoid evil.

But here is the rub – the routine promise that Mr. Obama thinks others are dumb enough to accept:

“GCC assistant secretary general Abdel Aziz Abu Hamad Aluwaisheg told a press conference May 15 that the Camp David summit ‘exceeded the expectations of most of us’ by reassuring GCC states of an ‘unequivocal’ commitment to their security. President Obama also stressed, Aluwaisheg said, that an impending nuclear deal with Iran does not represent a ‘pivot’ toward Tehran.” [Emphasis supplied]

Before accepting such a bald face lie, the Arab leaders may want to give the leaders of Israel, the Free Syrian Army, the leaders of the Ukraine, and the leaders of Yemen a call about how such assurances worked out for them. It took less than a nanosecond for Mr. Obama to shove our Arab allies under the bus as evidenced by Mr. Obama’s response to Mr. Aluwaisheg’s comments. Again US News & World Report continued:

While reassuring the GCC that the United States has its back, Obama also made clear that “the purpose of any strategic cooperation [between the United States and the GCC] is not to perpetuate any long-term confrontation with Iran, or to even marginalize Iran.”

* * *

“The US-GCC Joint Statement made no mention of a safe or no-fly zone in Syria, which had been an aspiration for some GCC countries and Turkey.

“White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told the Washington Post, ‘We have not seen a no-fly zone as being a viable option that can contribute to essentially changing decisively the situation on the ground given the nature of the fighting that’s taking place in urban areas and across the country.’

Last week, this column reported on the remarks by US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter on May 6 that a no-fly zone in Syria is ‘a difficult thing to contemplate,’ describing the establishment and enforcement of ‘safe zones’ as ‘a major combat mission.’”

So much for the promised “unequivocal commitment” to our Arab allies’ security.

A friend of mine, from the time I worked for the telephone company in Colorado, had a button he would wear when similar assurances were given employees during reorganization plans. It read KMAGBYOYON – translated “kiss my a** good-bye, you’re on your own now.” I still have the button and would have included a picture of it here but tech savvy I am not.

Saudi Arabia’s new monarch King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud has already gotten a belly-full of Mr. Obama’s duplicity. When Mr. Obama abandoned the leaders of Yemen to the Iranian backed Houthi rebels, Saudi Arabia stepped in to assist the government of Yemen. It began a successful series of aerial combat missions. Mr. Obama objected because it might interfere with his negotiations with Iran and gave Yemeni and Saudi officials assurances that Iran would agree to implementing a cease fire but Mr. Obama failed again to deliver on a commitment. The announced cease fire fell apart almost before it began and the Saudis are now back to their air campaign despite Mr. Obama’s objections.

The Saudis, along with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, and now King Abdullah of Jordan, have proven to be far more suspicious of Mr. Obama than other allies. Good for them. They are more likely to keep the lid on Iran and the Islamic extremists than Mr. Obama ever will. And for what it’s worth – one American citizen to them – don’t rely on Mr. Obama’s negotiating skills with Iran or his fortitude in implementing any compliance requirements. You need to stand tall, resist with all your might and rely on the Congress to drive a stake through the heart of Mr. Obama’s Iranian negotiations.

But this is more than just Israel and our Gulf allies distrusting Mr. Obama. In their private conversations they must be wondering about the American voters. They can understand how the voters could be fooled the first time by Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric and unquenchable promises (Hope & Change) but they must be disquieted by the fact that we would return such a man for a second term after it was clear that he was such a feckless leader that our allies no longer trusted us and our enemies no longer feared us.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Iran, Islam, Leadership, President Obama, Saudi Arabia | 35 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jack Lord God

    When you look at the situation you can’t help but be reminded that this looks an awful lot like state government negotiating with union cronies.A fiction is built where it is supposed to look like adversaries reaching a compromise, but really what is going on is trying to reach a plan to obscure things.

    Same here with Obama. Iran has its interests, and the rest of the world has their opposing interests. Obama is acting more as a liaison for Iran, trying to acheive their ends in a way that both obscures them, and will leav him with plausible deniability.

    There simply is no reason to leave Iran with any centrifuges. Pakistan gained nuclear weapons with roughly three thousand centrifuges of a much earlier design. Obama wants to leave Iran with six thousand vastly advanced centrifuges, and release their assets so they have a gigantic cash infusion. Add it up, he is not negotiating for US or world interests. He is trying to get the best deal for Iran that he can, with the only proviso being that they don’t perform their first nuclear test until he leaves office.

    How anyone can defend him is incomprehensible. However we all know the frothing mouthed will. It’s as predictable as blaming Bush when the first mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv.

    • Eric Blair

      “Add it up, he is not negotiating for US or world interests. He is trying to get the best deal for Iran that he can, with the only proviso being that they don’t perform their first nuclear test until he leaves office.”

      Right, he’s negotiating for Iran. In a long line of ridiculous statements, this one stands out. LOL.. and you’re calling other people “frothing mouthed”? You’re too funny. You should have a new name, and it should be, “Frothing Jack”.

      • Dick Winningstad

        Care to offer any evidence that appeasement and no tests until out of office is not the strategy of the current administration?

        • Eric Blair

          Well, Dick, how do you prove a negative?

          Jack’s statement goes beyond appeasement, and claims that he is trying to get the best deal for Iran. That he is, in short, actually representing Iran’s interests.

          Do you have contrary evidence that Obama has actually asked Iran to not do any tests until he is out of office?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Just his behavior. Caving to the demands of Iran. No hard negotiating only begging to get a deal.

          • Eric Blair

            That is an entirely subjective impression, and is not based on facts. Which, don’t get me wrong, we are all prone to do. But, to me, it’s part of the Rights frothing (like Jack) when it come to almost everything Obama does. At least you’re not outright accusing Obama of negotiating for the Iran. Are you?

          • Jack Lord God

            >That is an entirely subjective impression, and is not based on facts.

            Well, there is the fact of coming into office and immediatly proclaiming the Iranian rebellion was an internal matter and staying out, yet jumping in with two left feet in Egypt and Libya and screwing that up to boot.

            Plus there is the effort to weaken sanctions on Iran and getting zero in return (as manifested by any observation of the deal and the fact that now everyone in the region hates us and is against the deal). And I suppose there is the attempt to unfreeze billions of Iranian assets as well, so there is that.

            Then I guess there is Yemen, once touted by double bozos Biden and Obama as a success, and Iran just waltzed right in without much of a peep from us.

            AAaaannnnnd I suppose there is also the little fact of downplaying, rather than taking a stronger stance,when Iranian mullahs ginned up a little “death to America” chanting a few weeks ago right when we are acceding to their demands during the John Kerry flooor mop impression routine.

            Then again, facts aren’t of much of a concern to you right? I mean its Obama all the way, right or wrong isn’t it? So why pay attention to the facts when regardless of what he does you will say it is right?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm….. Extensions of negotiating deadlines. Sec. Kerry announcing a deal then Iran stating inspections of military and nuke facilities will not be allowed. Seems like caving to me.

          • Eric Blair

            Except, since no deal has been finalized, it is premature to talk about caving. It may very well be that Iranian intransigence scuttles the entire deal.

            What is the viable alternative? No negotiation? They have survived to date with sanctions, and a developing nuclear program. Is there an alternative to invasion?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Precisely. A deal was supposed to have been reached at the end of March. Meanwhile the centrifuges spin on. Pres. Obama is not interested in pushing a deal.
            The alternative to stonewalling was bombing the research sites. But since that has been off the table, no deal.

          • Eric Blair

            Taken off the table for the moment… but that can change as well. I seriously doubt that bombing will bring Iran to the table.. and probably wouldn’t seriously delay the centrifuges. I suspect the Iranians have taken that into account.

            Timelines can be extended… and 3 months does not make for a significant change of time.

            Diplomacy is an art, not a science. It very well may come to nothing, but the attempt needs to be made.

          • Jack Lord God

            Perfect example right here. A non troll would rebut with example of Obama trying to restrict Iranian hegemony or even some examples demonstrating Obama skill in Mideast negotiations. Can’t think of much in that realm, Blair can’t either, hence the lame dodge.

        • Jack Lord God

          He can’t. Despite endless examples given of appeasement of Iran, Blair is one of the frothing mouthed. Absolutely no matter what he will defend Obama, unless its for not adhering to the orthodoxy enough.

          By every metric, instance and example, Obama has sought to weaken restrictions or help out Iran and increase Iranian hegemony in the area. Blair will still insist otherwise though, generally through foot stamping, cranky faces and other troll like behavior, not example or evidence. It’s just his style. I say wind him up and watch him spin!.

          • Eric Blair

            LOL.. look up projection Jack, it’s what you do.

            Just let me give you a little teaser… facts don’t matter to me? Says the man who claimed that Obama had spent more than all other Presidents before him? I guess I’m not like you, and I’m not comfortable making up facts.

            Please don’t change. Some days you’re the only laugh I get. 🙂

          • guest

            Oh ewe spoor sheeple herder shagrimm with wool pollen covering over your fantasize.

          • Dick Winningstad

            It seems that with seven years of avg 3.5 trillion dollar budgets that Pres Obama has outspent the other presidents and perhaps combined.

    • Recede all the Dem moron tide

      Bravo!
      And thank you for the insight exposing another ‘ERA’ of Neville Chamberlain-typos patronizing left wing socialist NAZI’s pathos-of-today byte into ‘exposing’ their cojones swinging about within the Dem POTUS ministry – indeed, jackass DEM it all any way occupying the White House: Alas, flowing like menstrual discharge overland albeit egetting more michael maroon cookies than our legume Girl Scouts have sprouts. .

  • Eric Blair

    Here are some of the other parts of the U.S. News & World Report article that Larry conveniently left out:

    “In what might be characterized as a breakthrough by the trying standards of Middle East diplomacy, US President Barack Obama forged a diplomatic consensus with leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) around the possible benefits of a nuclear agreement with Iran and a more collaborative approach to security in the Middle East.

    and….

    “The summit statement should nullify the tired talking point by US critics that the Barack Obama administration is somehow selling out its Arab allies by pursuing a deal with Iran. Following the Camp David Summit, the United States and the GCC are, at least for now, and with eyes wide open about Iran, on the same page.”

    U.S. News & World Report

    • Dick Winningstad

      Of course the Sunnis are being sold out to the Shiites by this administration. That is why Saudi Arabia is looking to get its own nukes.

      • Eric Blair

        Of course they are.

        • guest

          Blair! Bid thee take your act and shovel it elsewhere, halloo, like a brain-dead Williams efficacy at an Orwellian animal farm.
          Absolutely!

          • Eric Blair

            So… in all the months you’ve been encouraging me to go somewhere else, and I haven’t, what do you think that says about you? You know, the definition of insanity?

            Oh.. just so you know.. the more you implore and whine at me to go, the more determined I am to stay. 🙂 It’s nice to know that I get under your skin.

          • guest

            Seems Eric has been chewing on loco weed since his ‘high’ school daze…even d’oh his vice principle forewarned of ‘retardment’ attending political sanity.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Eric has a right to make mistaken assertions like anyone else here…

          • Eric Blair

            Exactly! 😉

          • Ali Hu Snackbar

            Iran’s diplomacy in ‘isis says they’ve baked a suite yellow cake foe y’all to ingest, condiments of Iraq’s properties confiscated and transferred before Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden feted their makers mark in disgrace.

        • Dick Winningstad
          • Eric Blair

            Yes, Saudi Arabia is considering getting nukes. Something they’ve been doing since the 80’s. To claim that the Sunni’s are being sold out to the Shiites by this administration, and that this is why Saudi Arabia is seeking nukes is to ignore the entire context and history of their support for the Pakistani nuclear program.

            Unless you want to argue that they could see into the future. The Saudi’s have been doing this through at least four, and most likely five, different presidential administrations.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Saudi Arabia did help Pakistan get its Nukes. But made little attempt to get Pakistan to share until recently.

          • Eric Blair

            This is true, but it is because Saudi Arabia is fearing the worst. I think it is advisable to wait to see the details of the final negotiations, and I suspect Saudi Arabia is hoping to help influence those negotiations by stating their intentions if they don’t go well.

            A stick rather than a carrot. 😉

          • Dick Winningstad

            Saudi Arabia has lost confidence in our President’s ability to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The Saudis are seeking alternatives given our obvious weakness when facing a third rate power.

          • Eric Blair

            That is of course, one way to look at it. The question is, would the military option be any better, especially in the long run.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Taking the military option off the table has allowed a 3rg rate despotism to delay the negotiations while it continues to produce weapons grade fissile materials. And yes the military option would be a viable alternative. By bombing reactors and centrifuge locations that would put a stop to the Iranian leaders drive to get a bomb. It worked with Iraq before.

  • Barbara Swanson

    I found this amazing site to make a living online…I’m now close to making $3000 a month. http://tinyurl.CoM/p74plm6

    • Ali AmeriCON Pharoah

      Hayburner Swanson: Bid you jockey out your act @ $um doggone udder phoney shrew elsewhere!

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)