By Ali Sina
Political mistakes can be costly, but when they are made by the president of the
United States of America, they can be deadly.
When in 1979, the unrest in
escalated, President Carter’s national secretary advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, advised him to encourage the Shah to crack down the
revolution. The more cautious State Department, suggested that Carter
reach out to democratic opposition elements in order to smooth the
transition to a new government. Carter
did neither, and the worst possible outcome ensued.
Muslim youths, from all over the world, were dazzled
by the unexpected success of the Islamic revolution.
Nothing is more roborant to Islamists than victory. Victory gives
them the confirmation that they are right. It is an elixir that
Thus, after centuries of lying in its grave jihad was resurrected .
As you can see, mistakes in the White House can be
costly. Who would have thought Carter’s lack of political acumen would
cause the carnage of 9/11, so many wars and the death of millions of
people across the world? Carter
is history, but history is the best teacher.
is about to elect a new president. Barak Hussein Obama, an unknown
political figure, has emerged as the candidate of the Democrats with a
good chance of winning the presidency. He has mesmerized a great number of
people. Is he the right man to lead the world's most powerful country?
Does he have enough political acumen for the job?
What to Do with a Nuclear Iran?
Obama linked his rival McCain to the outgoing
president Bush and said the Bush/McCain record on protecting this country,
has benefited Iran, left al-Qaida "stronger than ever", and allowed Osama bin
Laden to remain free and release propaganda videos.
So what would he do if he is elected?
Well, to begin with, he has announced that, if elected, he wouldn't
to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks.
"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art," he
said. "Because this
administration has been very clear that it will not have direct
has met preconditions that are essentially what
views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the
negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."
What Obama misses, is that the
preconditions are not whimsical excuses of Bush to avoid talk with Iran. They are unanimous resolutions of the UN Security Council, agreed upon
after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran
was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Obama
will have to ignore the recommendation of IAEA and defy the resolutions of
the UN Security Council to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
What would be the reaction of the Chinese, the
Russians and America's European allies who voted for these resolutions in the Council? What
message would this send to all other banana republics that may want to
violate the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the international
law? Wouldn’t it undermine the credibility of the Security Council?
Wouldn’t it be a mockery of international diplomacy?
thinks the preconditions are unfair and unnecessary? The resolution basically says that
Iran should stop cheating. Does Obama think it is okay for Iran to cheat
and to lie while the talks are proceeding?
Let us say Obama, thumbs his nose at the
IAEA and the Security Council and meets Ahmadinejad without precondition. Would
this make the delinquent Iran weaker or stronger?
Obama’s statement that he would waive the
preconditions to talk with Iran
could not have come at a more propitious time for the beleaguered
president of the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad, who was under attack by his
internal opponents and weakened for endangering
with his irresponsible rhetoric on "wiping Israel off the map" and his reckless pursuit to build nuclear bomb in defiance of the UN Security
Council suddenly got a shot in the arm by Obama who conceded that Iran does
not have to listen to the highest international authority.
This is not just a victory for Ahmadinejad and the
but also a setback for the Iranian opposition and the democratic movement in
that country. More strength for the hardliners translates into more instability in the region and more
support for terrorism.
Clarity of Language
In an interview with ABC television,
was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to
launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will
said unequivocally. “In the next 10 years, during which they might
foolishly consider launching an attack on
Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
This is tough talk, but it sends a clear message and clarity
prevents misunderstanding, wars and loss of lives.
What was Obama’s reaction? He took issue with that and said, “Using
words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm
not interested in saber rattling.”
The truth is that, it is ambiguity that does not produce good result.
was clear. Clarity acts as a deterrent. When
in 1990, April Glaspie, the American Ambassador to
Iraq saw the massing of Iraqi troops near the border of
Kuwait, she said, "we [Washington] have no opinion on the Arab-Arab
conflicts". She told Saddam Hussein that the
did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements led Saddam into believing he had received a
diplomatic green light from the
Kuwait. The result was catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed
as the result. If she had warned Saddam unequivocally of the
consequences, those lives would not have been sacrificed. Clarity saves
lives. Obama’s lack of clarity vis-ŕ-vis Iran
can spell disaster for millions of Iranians.
Obama wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. What would they talk
about? What are the legitimate grievances of
that Americans need to hearken? Ahmadinejad
has made his wishes clear. He wants to build the nuclear bomb and he wants
to wipe Israel
off the map. How much of these are negotiable? He
is convinced that it is through destroying Israel that the hidden Imam Mahdi will make his
appearance. He sees himself as the hand of God. This man is motivated by
faith, not by reason. How do you negotiate with such a person?
On Regime Change in Iran
Obama said that if he is elected he would engage in "aggressive
personal diplomacy" and offer
economic inducements and a promise not to seek "regime change"
stopped meddling in
and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”
has never shunned from talking. The mullahs love to talk. The phrase
"dialogue between civilizations" was coined by the last Iranian
president Mullah Khatami. These talks would allow them to buy time and to
build their coveted atomic bomb.
Furthermore, the mullahs have never acknowledged meddling in Iraq,
cooperating with terrorists, or wanting to build atomic bombs. They can
give all the promises to make you happy and continue doing what they are doing, while
they will get the economical incentives that Obama will throw at
For Muslims, treaties mean nothing. Inspired by the example set by
their prophet at Hudaibiyyah, Muslims will sign any treaty, only to break
them when they can get away with it. As an ex-Muslim, assuming Obama is an
ex-Muslim and not just pretending for the sake of political expediency, he should know
Again what Mr. Obama does not know is that the mess in
is the result of the errors of
Washington. In 1953 the CIA, instigated by the British, led a coup against
the Prime Minister Dr.
Mossadeq and uprooted the fledging democracy in that country.
Then in 1979, Carter turned his back against the Shah, the good
America, and let
fall into the hands of Islamists. America is morally obligated to Iran,
more than she was to Japan or to Germany. Unlike these two countries, Iran
has never attacked America. Iran is a victim of America's misguided
Today 90% of Iranians oppose the Islamic
regime. They want change, but an uprising against a tyrannical regime that
has no qualm killing any number of people to stay in power is not
realistic. Iranians need support to overthrow their tyrants. When Mr.
Obama reassures the regime that the US
will not support regime change, he is dashing the hopes of the majority of
Iranians. Today, the greatest
in the Middle East are the people of Iran. They distrust the European countries because of their dealings with
the Islamic regime. By offering protection to mullahs, Obama risks
alienating the oppressed people of
Iran. Iranians do not
deserve to be betrayed and stabbed again by another inept American
The Islamic Republic of Iran
is the main supporter and financier of many terrorist groups,
including Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the instigator of troubles in Iraq.
The mullahs will never cooperate with America to bring stability to Iraq.
Stability and democracy in Iraq are threats to the regime in Iran. Obama's
views are naive. He does not understand the intricacies of the politics of
the Middle East. The best solution for the crisis in the Middle East is regime change
in Iran and not promises of its protection. Iran is the head of the snake.
Islamic terrorism began in Iran and must end in Iran.
Where does Obama stand on Israel/Palestine issue?
Well, today he is markedly pro Israel.
On February 2007 Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago
to woo pro-Israel campaign donors. In
his speech he expressed his support and dedication to
the special relationship between the
Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with
Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible
partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in
defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's
words to Ha'aretz last week.
Reviewing his speech, Ha'aretz
Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama
“sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically,
Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is
However, Obama’s views on this issue, a decade earlier, were very different. The pro-Palestine activist and the
co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah writes:
Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half
a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events
including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the
keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I
heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a
professor. On that occasion and others Obama
was forthright in his criticism of
policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a
neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the
Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies.
But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet
him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I
haven't said more about
right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things
calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism,
including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune
critical of Israeli and
policy, "Keep up the good work!"
Ali Abunimah, laments that Obama has gradually shifted into
AIPAC camp as he has moved from small time Illinois politics to the national scene and is “courting the pro-Israel
Mr. Abumimah seems to be a bit impatient. Maybe Obama is just playing
the political game of deception to get elected. After which he will be
"more upfront." Such a dramatic change
must be seen with suspicion. In fact Abumimah himself
concludes, “He [Obama] is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to
From left to right, Michelle
state senator Barak Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward
Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in
at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. Edward Said was an
outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights and vehemently against
On July 3, 2000, Prof. Said was
photographed lobbing a rock across the Lebanon-Israel border.. Wikipedia
Michelle Obama and Barak Obama
listen to Edward Said give the keynote address at an
Arab community event in
Chicago, May 1998.
Carter’s lack of political wit weakened America, but he was succeeded by
Reagan, a man with implacable patriotic
credentials. Reagan was proud to be an American. He made America
#1. His love for his country translated into strength, both
economically and strategically. Communism fell on its own but one must not
underestimate the success of capitalism during the Reagan era for the demise of communism. It was
the strength of
that highlighted the failure of communism and convinced the
Soviets that their world view is flawed.
to be strong it is necessary to have a president who is proud of being
an American. Obama does not
seem to be too happy with his country. Obama’s spiritual mentor is
Jeremiah Wright, a man who hates
and who said “God Bless
” should be replaced by “God damn America.” Obama says he never heard
that remark. But he has been attending Wright’s church for 20
years. Wright’s anti American rhetoric is not something new. It is reflected in all his sermons. He has even praised Louis Farrakhan, a
man known for his racist, homophobic, and antisemitic
remarks. Obama has made a donation of more than $20,000 to Wright’s
church. Is it possible to be a friend of someone and listen to his sermons
for 20 years and not know him? Assuming Obama is not lying, can he be
trusted to pick the right people to run the country?
As a matter of fact, Michelle, Obama’s wife, evinced the same disdain
when she said she has never been proud of her country until now that her
husband is running for the top job. Will she be ashamed of America
again if he loses?
If the Obamas are ashamed of America they must have a
different vision for it and if elected, it is likely that they would make some
In fact "change" is Obama's campaign slogan.
When someone promises change, one must ask what kind
of change. Khomeini promised change and so did Hitler. They
delivered what they promised. Has Obama explained what is he going to change and to what? That is what is troubling. He has not.
As a matter of fact, now that he is seeking the widespread support
of the voters, he is sounding more and more like other candidates.
Actually his plans are not a lot different from those of Bush whom he loves to
attack at every turn.
Despite the fact that he is changing his rhetoric and
is sounding more mainstream to appeal to voters, I do believe that Obama will
make some changes and that is what concerns me. I am afraid the
changes that he intends to make are not what the Americans would want to see.
Who Wins if Obama Wins?
Obama’s victory will no doubt be a victory for Ahmadinejad and the
Iran who will be encouraged to crack down more brutally the opposition.
They will jail and execute their opponents and the minorities to solidify their hold on power. Likewise,
the terrorist organizations that are supported by the
regime in Tehran
will cheer and they too will take advantage of the weak America to
score political points.
The Sunnis will not let the Shiites steal the show. They too will
intensify their terrorist activities. Obama thinks America should back off
and appease its enemies. The truth is that the more the terrorists succeed the
bolder they become. The weakness of America will be their victory. The so called
moderate Muslims who are now sitting on the fence because they think the
ummah is too weak for jihad, will join their jihadi brethrens and the
spectrum of the third world war and a nuclear holocaust becomes a reality.
There are other people who will also cheer Obama’s
than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees endorsed Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint
statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back
the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on
Then there are the communists, the supporters of Fidel Castro, Hugo
Chavez and the admirers of the terrorist Che Guevara who will also cheer. As a
matter of fact these people are actively campaigning
for Obama (see also this
has promised to lift the economical embargo on Cuba if elected.
The Cuban flag with the image
of Ernesto Che Guevara superimposed on it. It’s tacked onto the
wall of an office in Barak Obama’s Houston campaign
Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. From communists to Islamists down to the terrorists, everybody loves Obama. Is
there something these people know that the average Americans don’t? Why the
sworn enemies of America
are so hyped and excited over the prospect of Obama's presidency?
Obama is aware of the potential backlash. He is doing everything
he can to hide this embarrassing display of affection. On June16, in his
Detroit rally, his campaign volunteers barred
two Muslim women from sitting behind the podium to prevent the women's
headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the
candidate. The women were offended, one of them said, "The
message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him
associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."
I believe the man in the White
House must be someone who can be trusted, someone with impeccable
patriotic credentials who is not ashamed
of wearing America's flag pin and puts his hand on his heart instead
of his genital when the national anthem is played. Big acts are
rehearsed; it is little things like these that can tell us about a person.
A trustworthy candidate is one whose views on vital
issues have not
shifted 180 degrees only recently. He must understand the threat of
Islamofascism and must have the sagacity to deal with it.
Is Senator Barak Hussein Obama fit to be the commander in chief of the mightiest military
force on earth? If we are still paying the consequences of Carter’s ineptitude,
what would be the price if Obama turns to be the wrong man for the White
House? The problem is that we
know so little about this man and the little that we know is not reassuring.
Obama is a wild card. Can Americans afford gambling their country and the
world peace in these perilous times?
Ali Sina is the author of Understanding
psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet [ISBN:
978-0980994803] and a major contributor to
Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out [ISBN:
978-0979267109]. He is the founder of faithfreedom.org,
the organ of the movement of ex-Muslims.