Barack Obama sent a letter of appeasement to Iran’s Ayatollah regarding ISIS, a supposed common enemy. Yet, as Shoebat.com reported, Turkey – a NATO ally of the U.S. – is aligned with ISIS. This would mean that Obama is engaging Iran, one of only four officially designated State Sponsors of Terrorism, to help fight an enemy supported by NATO ally Turkey.
Why isn’t Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan furious? It’s quickly made known when he is. Last month, within hours of Vice President Joe Biden’s comments at Harvard University, that Turkey was arming jihadists in Syria, Erdogan demanded – and promptly received – an apology, as Shoebat.com reported.
So, why would the U.S. negotiate with an officially designated State Sponsor of Terrorism in Iran against the interests of its NATO ally – Turkey? As Shoebat.com reported months ago, perhaps that’s the wrong question to ask. A better question may have to do with the dealings between Iran and Turkey. While Iran is Shiite and Turkey is Sunni, Turkey has much more regard and reverence for Shiite Islam than do other Sunni nations like Saudi Arabia (the enmity between the Iranians and the Saudis is off the charts).
In Syria, there are currently three factions at work – the Assad regime, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed opposition that continues to deceive gullible U.S. politicians, and ISIS.
Turkey wants Assad gone in the worst way. To use a metaphor, Assad is like a bone nine feet away from a dog on an eight ft. chain. As such, Turkey is using ISIS to help weaken and ultimately break that chain. As long as Assad is in power, Turkey needs ISIS but for political reasons it cannot state so publicly, as Erdogan’s reaction to Biden’s comments demonstrate.
ISIS is currently operating in Syria and Iraq. This is where attention must be paid to the Iranian-Turkish alliance. These two countries are ready to deal because the spoils are too enticing. In the post Arab-Spring age of conquest and annexation, Iran desperately wants a victory. Claiming Iraq – a predominantly Shiite country – as its own would constitute such a victory.
In return, Assad would fall and Syria would fall to Turkey.
That would leave two players left in Syria – ISIS and those Muslim Brotherhood-backed rebels. If those are the only two options for Erdogan, he would choose the latter. ISIS will have served its purpose. Besides, ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was loudly rebuked by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi earlier this year for declaring a Caliphate. Al-Qaradawi responded by traveling to Turkey, where he met with Erdogan and declared that Turkey would be the only home of any future Caliphate.
When Assad falls, ISIS fighters in Syria can be expected to either be absorbed by Turkey or die in defiance but the stealth Islamists in Syria are the ones Erdogan wants in power. They want the same thing he does – a Caliphate based in Turkey. All one has to do is look at how the supposed ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria are doing the same thing. As Shoebat.com reported, as these
‘moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood-backed rebels are being defeated by ISIS, they are either fleeing to Turkey or defecting to ISIS; it’s a blueprint for what would happen when Turkey becomes fully engaged in the region.
Assad’s fall would also give Iran greater incentive to vanquish ISIS in Iraq. Again, ISIS fighters that want to be part of Turkey’s plan can defect or die in opposition.
As a short-term practical matter – not an ideological one – the U.S. would do well to actually align with Assad. Those who insist that’s a ludicrous notion should be more outraged that Obama is reaching out to Iran, whose motives can never be trusted. Iran is playing Middle Eastern poker with the West and Assad has all his cards on the table. Unlike Turkey and Iran, he has no angle at the moment; there is no hidden agenda. His interests are plain; he’s fighting for his own survival. At the moment, it is he who stands in the way of a stronger Iran and a Caliphate much bigger and more ruthless than the one declared by ISIS.
Yet, American politicians – from both sides of the aisle – continue to advocate for the worst of bad options. The two U.S. Senators who have become known as the poster boys for the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda – John McCain and Lindsey Graham – said the following in a joint statement:
“It is outrageous that, while the cries of moderate Syrian forces for greater U.S. assistance fall on deaf ears in the White House, President Obama is apparently urging Ayatollah Khamenei to join the fight against ISIS.”
Surely, McCain and Graham would have to admit that it’d be better to engage Assad in the fight against ISIS than Iran, would it not? Ah, but that undercuts the agenda of those pesky
moderate Syrian forces Muslim Brotherhood-backed rebels.
Republican Presidential nominee in 2012 Mitt Romney is equally ignorant of why Obama would be engaging Iran:
“To suggest that we might somehow work together is something which is so far beyond the pale, I was speechless as I heard about it,” Romney said. “I simply can’t understand it.”
If he can’t understand it, why should he be considered an authority on the subject? Obama is helping Turkey, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of that mean and nasty Bashar al-Assad who is nothing more than a flailing man in the middle of a lake. The same Assad that the likes of McCain, Graham, and Romney want removed from power.
Israel’s former Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman appeared on Fox News and compared Obama’s letter to the piece of paper Neville Chamberlain held above his head at Heathrow airport in 1938 after a meeting with Hitler (h/t GWP):