As opposed to the revolution in Egypt, an overthrow of the regime in Iran could be staggeringly beneficial to the United States. Egypt is almost certain to move away from friendship with the US and the treaty with Israel, and toward an oppressive Islamic rule as orchestrated by the Muslim Brotherhood. There are only potential disasters lurking in this regime change.
A change in governance in Iran, on the other hand, likely could result in a reduction in antagonism toward “The Great Satan” and “The Little Satan” (i.e., Iran’s characterization of the US and Israel). Even more importantly, it could significantly slow or completely halt their nuclear weapons program, which is the greatest single threat to global stability in human history.
The obvious question in regard to this revolutionary dichotomy is: Why is the Obama administration so vocally supportive of the populist revolt in Egypt, but so deadly silent about Iran? Why is Obama apparently silently supporting a regime that is our sworn mortal enemy over another that has been our steadfast friend and ally for over thirty years?
There is just not enough objective evidence to develop an educated conclusion as to the rationale for this foreign policy strategy. Since Obama himself will not tell us, we can only make blind assumptions based on his actions and behavior. And these appear erratic, inconsistent, and illogical for the leader of the free world.
It is almost as though his intentions are malevolent toward his own country, as crazy as that sounds.
We are assured by Michael Medved’s op ed headline in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that “Obama Isn’t Trying to ‘Weaken America’”. I feel much better now. Mr. Medved must be privy to some information not available to the rest of us, as the circumstantial evidence points toward the opposite conclusion.
Andrew Thomas aka Angel
as published in American Thinker
No comments:
Post a Comment