Exclusive: Obamadinejad – Will You Still Dance With Me?
Bill Siegel
July 2, 2009
familysecuritymatters.org
Exclusive: Obamadinejad – Will You Still Dance With Me?
Bill Siegel
With all the fuss over President Barack Obama’s middle name, perhaps he should simply have been called Barack “Obamadinejad” instead. It seems Obama has much in common with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
[Disclaimer: It is abundantly clear that Obama is no Ahmadinejad, has not called for genocide on his sworn enemies abroad, has not brutally tortured (at least as we used to understand the word) his enemies at home and does not share the particular traits that have made Ahmadinejad vilified in some parts of the world and at home. Inferences here are for metaphorical, literary, and exploratory purposes only.]
Both ran successful presidential campaigns promising great economic revivals only to embark on policies destined to destroy the fundamentals of their respective commercial underpinnings. While Ahmadinejad has directed the people’s oil money to build up his Revolutionary Guards and nuclear assets, Obama has taken his people’s money and embarked upon taking control of private industries.
Both have shown great flair for spending with abandon whatever they can get their hands on, despite claiming the need for frugality. Both enjoy printing currency: dollars or rials. Ahmadinejad buys allegiance from the rural populace while Obama repays unions. And both are criticized for leading their countries toward hyper-inflation and greater unemployment while both defend themselves as merely pursuing social “justice” – one for Allah and the other for liberalism. Both promised to spread the wealth around to poor families but have nothing to show for it.
Both appear perturbed by capitalism. Ahmadinejad claims, “Economics is nothing when it comes to the science of ladduni,” a rationalization of any imprudent economic policy on the basis that it is in the service of the return of the Hidden Imam and the war against he infidel. Obama seems to front a war against profits. His science seems to rationalize foolhardy taxation and spending because it is in the service of concentrating power in Obama’s hands. Most recently, backing a House bill, he uses the “science” of global warming to camouflage the “confiscate and control” approach certainly not unfamiliar to Ahmadinejad.
Both sit on large supplies of energy but do not see it through to utilize their own assets efficiently. Both wind up importing in order to fill their energy needs leaving each extremely vulnerable to external threats. Ahmadinejad, as an oil exporter, clearly wants America to remain “addicted to oil.” Obama also seems so inclined. Despite campaign rhetoric about freeing America from oil dependence, the cap and trade bill and other hints of action do nothing to truly advance this goal and may, in fact, (by increasing fees charged to coal companies) increase America’s dependence while driving up the price. Until Obama takes real action to insure that automobiles are made capable of utilizing competing fuels to oil, foreign oil will continue to monopolize our energy profile.
They both have an aversion to free speech. Ahmadinejad’s control of his nation’s dialogue is legendary. Obama’s is becoming so – watch talk radio. They both have palpable discomfort in dealing with their opposition. Obama will claim to be transparent and accountable but then simply ignore his opposition or fire those who speak out against him. Ahmadinejad has more direct means of elimination. Obama has turned the press into puppies and kills annoying flies. Ahmadinejad simply kills the puppies.
Both developed their political “chops” within revolutionary movements. Ahmadinejad has Revolutionary Guard roots, worked much like a local community organizer and is even rumored to have been an executioner while rising to power in Ayatollah Khomeini’s takeover. Obama is well studied in the paths of Alinsky, Ayers, and Wright (not to mention Franklin Marshall Davis and perhaps his alleged Saudi funders) and developed his style for “cool” while community organizing in initially unfamiliar Chicago. While Ahmadinejad uses militias and Revolutionary Guards to enforce his heavy hand, Obama has crisis monger Rahm Emanuel and Acorn to do the dirty work while media manipulator David Axelrod protects his unflappable image.
They both have talent in uniting peoples. Obama’s worldwide appeal derives from selling the notion that we are all the same and that he is uniquely capable to bring us together for our common good. Ahmadinejad has creatively shown he can bring Sunni Muslims together with Iranian Shiites, having registered Hamas, Syrian leadership, al Qaeda and others to join his anti-Israel, anti-American crusade.
And neither discusses terrorism. Terrorists are worthy fighters in the service of Islam for Ahmadinejad while Obama just doesn’t think the word is fair. Instead they both send billions of dollars to Hamas while fighting hard against those who actually fight the terrorists.
Both are quite adept at public speaking and especially at saying one thing while ultimately doing the opposite. Ahmadinejad’s entire sketch of diplomacy with the West has been based on promises broken and lies let loose in order to buy time to become an unchallengeable nuclear force. Obama, the more elegant and craftier speaker, is much more subtle in his sleight of mouth. Rather than simply use the Shiite tools of taqiya or kitman, he prefers to “gas light” his populace, making it question itself when things do not add up – as with his promises of no earmarks in his recent bills, that any public insurance fund will not edge out competitive private funds, that the cap and trade bill is a jobs bill and will reduce energy bills and so on..
Both are quite facile with the truth. Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and insists his country has no homosexuals. Obama simply invents concepts such as “jobs saved” to disguise rising unemployment levels, greatly exaggerates the American Muslim population, reneges on his campaign promise that there would be no middle class tax increase and insists he has no interest in controlling the many industries he now can effectively control.
Both are well skilled with fear mongering. Ahmadinejad tries to turn his population against the evil satanic America while Obama instills in his followers fears of Bush, Cheney, capitalism, global warming among others. They both thrive on class division. Obama has geared most of his rhetoric to demonize the rich and successful. Ahmadinejad simply uses Americans and infidels as his foils. And both exert new extraordinary influence on their respective election processes. Ahmadinejad, with Khamenei’s blessing, has been able to free up the Revolutionary Guards to engage in political activities that Khomeini had for years prohibited. Obama has found unique ways to release and fund his very own revolutionary force, ACORN, to give it extraordinary, if not illegal, influence; not to mention his revolutionary move of the census under White House control.
Both are great escape artists. Obama, employing the axiom that the best defense is a good offense, uses the “whackamole” approach of bombarding the public daily with a new plan for a new issue to distract from pursuing objections to the last one. Following Alinsky’s rule for keeping the pressure on, he escapes under sheer volume; slicing the country with a thousand cuts. Ahmadinejad simply escapes to Russia when the going gets too tough to merely blame the Jews and Americans.
Ahmadinejad has described the march of the Islamic Revolution as a “train without brakes.” Obama’s legislative assault, rationalized as the “change” the people voted for, is more like an avalanche at peak speed.
Ahmadinejad is a devout Shiite “Twelver” who believes in the return of the messianic Hidden Imam. He believes it is his mission to provoke on behalf of Iran a clash with America in order to create an Islamic world for the return of the Hidden Imam While Obama was born to a Sunni Muslim father; his self-beating, America-flogging speech is reminiscent of the Shiite impulse to honor Imam Hussein. Obama is very practiced at whipping all of our backs for the horrors he suggests this country has committed throughout its dark past! Obama has his own global vision and, speaking in terms of his own “new day,” postures himself as the Messiah- although far from hidden. While Ahmadinejad submits to the Hidden Imam, Obama bows to Saudi King Abdullah.
Perhaps their similarities shed some light upon Obama’s reluctance to meaningfully support the recent uprising by the people of Iran in response to the apparent rigging of the presidential election. For days, Obama said very little other than to announce a “wait and see” policy. Days later, he gave to some the impression of toughening his position by calling the violence “deplorable” and counter to international standards and expectations. Later, still pleading that he did not “meddle,” he called the violence “outrageous” and voiced concern as to how his dream dialogue with Ahmadinejad might be affected. Yet his message to Ahmadinejad was essentially, “please stop lying about me, stop saying I am interfering” and “but don’t worry, I still really really want to have my diplomatic dance with you.”
From this angle, is Obama intent on preserving Ahmadinejad’s rule? Prior to his recent Cairo speech, Obama announced his new policy that Israel must make significant moves before the Palestinians must demonstrate their ability to be partners in peace and before America will assist Israel in any aggressive effort against Iran. The impossibility of satisfying that condition made clear that Obama would never be assisting Israel militarily against Iran – at that time the most likely threat to the regime’s continued rule.
Furthermore, during his speech, Obama apologized for America’s participation in the 1953 overthrow of then Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mossedeq. While some suggest this was to comfort the Iranian people that America would not arrogantly assert itself into Iranian politics again, its true message was to signal Ahmadinejad and his Ayatollahs that he, Obama, would not touch them or their rule.
To add further color, Obama also articulated his policy that no nation should prevent any other nation from having peaceful nuclear power. Even though everyone in the Western world other than the UN, CIA, State Department and Obama devotees knows that Iran’s supposed peaceful nuclear “program” is a sham cover for a nuclear weapons drive, this principle signals clearly that it will be a long time before Obama is likely to take aggressive action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.
All in all, Obama’s words in Cairo did not, as many liberal pundits suggest, frighten the regime. Quite the opposite, the effect of these words on the regime was to give Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei great comfort that Ahmadinejad’s aggressive behavior as Iranian President was paying massive dividends. Accordingly, Khamenei was lured into following Ahmadinejad’s lead and did not hesitate to re-establish (in retrospect, perhaps too confidently) Mahmoud as his man of choice in the presidential election. Obama was Ahmadinejad’s greatest election gift.
And following the election, Obama’s initial and subsequent timid responses to the courageous Iranian people’s protests produced a similar misreading. These same liberal pundits argued that Obama needed to hold back in order to preserve America’s standing as a principled nation willing to respect Iran’s sovereignty. Such restraint would, it was suggested, prevent Ahmadinejad from convincing the Iranian people that America is even more evil than the regime has articulated to date. Further, it would preserve the goodwill necessary for future negotiations should Ahmadinejad (or anyone else) maintain his position as president. Yet, for the Iranian people, many of whom already appreciate America, respect comes from strength and moral clarity. They most likely will feel betrayed and demoralized by America should Obama maintain his tepid response which will only serve to strengthen Ahmadinejad in the end.
From this particular perspective, one can only speculate on Obama’s possible interest in preserving Ahmadinejad. Perhaps Obama is enormously naïve – a Chauncey Gardiner. Perhaps Obama has already scripted the future negotiations with Ahmadinejad and does not know how to adapt to different facts. Perhaps his ego is so invested in his being the grand mediator who will ultimately solve the Iranian nuclear crisis (as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) that he will fight any real progress that is not directly attributable to his doing. Perhaps, having come to power as the un-Bush, he can not tolerate the possibility that a successful internal change in Iran could be attributed to Bush’s multi-year efforts to unleash freedom in the Middle East. Perhaps, knowing that a regime change in Iran presents the best opportunity for true “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians, he has very different plans for the region. Perhaps, moving farther out, Obama’s desire for a well supported Hamas demands that Iran continue to be its financier in addition to the efforts Obama, himself, has made to re-open charitable funding to terrorist organizations and increase aid to Hamas through UN channels. Perhaps he concludes that Ahmadinejad is the proper face for the Iranian nuclear weapons effort. Perhaps he has already accepted the notion that Iran will obtain nuclear weapons and believes Ahmadinejad gives him better cover for his failure to have stopped it. Even more devious and outrageously conspiratorial, perhaps Obama’s true agenda requires Iran to be a nuclear weapons power.
What is clear is that, for whatever reason, Obama’s actions have consistently helped to advance Ahmadinejad’s agenda. It has been at least eight months since Obama knew he had the presidency and there has been no diplomatic advance on perhaps America’s gravest threat. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has pushed his enrichment and missile procurement efforts full steam ahead against a clock whose time we can not read comfortably. Holding out his own open hand to Iran and begging for the appearance of legitimate diplomatic efforts with it, Obama has taken off of the table any true inkling that he will interfere meaningfully with Ahmadinejad’s march to nuclear weapons. And as has been true throughout our three decades long history with this regime, American weakness begets Iranian hostility.
We have waited 30 years for just this type of crack in the regime’s armor. Our agents have worked for 30 years to generate just this type of crack in the regime’s armor. This is not about one candidate versus another. This is not, as Obama described in his press conference, a mere “debate” the people of Iran are having over what future they will choose. This is about the future of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the struggle required to give the Iranian people a choice in the first place.
Nor has this struggle just arisen out of thin air. Many of “the people of Iran” have wanted regime change for years. The recent election merely allowed them to make a national incident suitable for international coverage and the regime is well aware of it. Ahmadinejad has been taken out of the public eye while Khamenei evidences great worry over the people’s direct challenge to his authority. The people have been crying out for support in the ways they can and need, at a minimum, firm signs of hope from America-that it supports them and will be available to help them put back the pieces if needed. Instead, Obama, first with virtual silence and then with his continued focus on just how long diplomacy will be delayed, essentially told them, “as long as your leaders will engage with me on nukes, I, like your president, do not really care about you or your desires for real ‘change.’”
For years, liberals shunned any consideration of military action against Iran’s nuclear assets insisting, instead, upon taking efforts to win the “hearts and minds” of the Iranian people. There has been no better situation in which to do so than what has unfolded before our eyes today. It used to be said of Yassir Arafat that he would never pass up the opportunity to pass up an opportunity. Obama, perhaps in hiding with Ahmadinejad at the Kremlin, continues to do exactly that.
In Iran’s prior election of 2005, Ahmadinejad used the slogan “We Can!” Once again, Obama, so similar, has added the word “Yes” to all that Ahmadinejad says and does. |
