 |
| ISIS on the march |
What will happen if the Islamic State, a.k.a. ISIS, succeeds in taking over Iraq? It will likely try to invade Iran.
But isn't Iran already an Islamic theocracy? Indeed, it is. So why would a burgeoning Islamic organization such as ISIS want to invade another Islamic nation?
Because Iran is a Shiite nation while ISIS is a Sunni organization. And the Shiites and Sunnis don't like each other.
That animosity goes back many centuries. What's the main difference between Shiites and Sunnis? The Shiites believe that the heirs of Islam's fourth caliph Ali are Muhammad's rightful successors while the Sunnis believe that Islam's first four caliphs were the rightful successors of Muhammad.
Another difference is their view of the Islamic messiah, the Imam Mahdi. The Shiites believe that he has already appeared on earth and cannot appear again until all the Jews have been eliminated from the world. The Sunnis believe that he has yet to appear.
While those differences seem like minor issues to many of us in the west, they divide the Islamic world like a huge chasm. And in the Islamic world, those are the types of issues that lead to bloody wars.
And so, the question that begs to be asked is this one: Is the Obama Administration purposely allowing the Islamic State to take over Iraq in the hope that Iran will be forced into a war with ISIS?
Obama's regrettable decision to pull American troops out of Iraq beginning in 2011 enabled ISIS to overrun Iraq. And his subsequent feeble attempt to thwart ISIS via limited and impotent air strikes suggests that he may indeed want the Islamic terror group to march all the way to the Iranian border.
If ISIS succeeds in taking Iraq--and that's becoming a very real possibility--then the Islamic State will undoubtedly set its sights on Iran.
If a war occurs between ISIS and Iran, things will get extremely dangerous and ugly in the Middle East. The Iranians are close to manufacturing nuclear weapons. And they will likely use them against ISIS if the survival of their nation is at stake.
My suspicion surrounding ISIS and the Obama Administration is based upon what my senses are telling me. I strongly believe that the Obama Administration would rather have ISIS confront Iran than the United States, NATO or Israel.
I suspect that Obama hopes that ISIS and Iran will go to war and damage each other in a similar fashion to the heavy damage Iraq and Iran incurred during the war they fought from 1980-1988. Both sides suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in that long war.
If an ISIS-Iran confrontation was indeed drawn up by the Obama Administration, then that's a terrible strategy. Not only have tens of thousands of innocent people already lost their lives to ISIS butchers, but the potential loss of life could be catastrophic in that region if Iran is invaded and decides to use nuclear weapons.
As the world's reigning superpower (for now at least), the United States has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives rather than foment wars and revolutions that kill countless people.
Thus, if the Islamic State's success turns out to be the result of Obama's Middle East strategy, then Barack Obama and all those in his administration who plotted that strategy have blood on their hands.
Think of all those innocent people that have been robbed, raped, brutalized and beheaded. That wouldn't have happened if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq.
And please don't tell me that we couldn't afford to do that anymore. We keep troops all over the world in places such as Germany and South Korea where there aren't any wars being fought.
So why not instead deploy them where they are truly needed? Because Barack Obama and all the JV's (stooges, lackeys, buffoons, clowns, imbeciles etc.) in his administration don't want to. They think they can implement a more effective foreign policy in the Middle East than the far more experienced folks in the State Department or at the Pentagon can.
Behold America--your judgment is rapidly approaching.
While those differences seem like minor issues to many of us in the west, they divide the Islamic world like a huge chasm. And in the Islamic world, those are the types of issues that lead to bloody wars.
And so, the question that begs to be asked is this one: Is the Obama Administration purposely allowing the Islamic State to take over Iraq in the hope that Iran will be forced into a war with ISIS?
Obama's regrettable decision to pull American troops out of Iraq beginning in 2011 enabled ISIS to overrun Iraq. And his subsequent feeble attempt to thwart ISIS via limited and impotent air strikes suggests that he may indeed want the Islamic terror group to march all the way to the Iranian border.
If ISIS succeeds in taking Iraq--and that's becoming a very real possibility--then the Islamic State will undoubtedly set its sights on Iran.
If a war occurs between ISIS and Iran, things will get extremely dangerous and ugly in the Middle East. The Iranians are close to manufacturing nuclear weapons. And they will likely use them against ISIS if the survival of their nation is at stake.
My suspicion surrounding ISIS and the Obama Administration is based upon what my senses are telling me. I strongly believe that the Obama Administration would rather have ISIS confront Iran than the United States, NATO or Israel.
I suspect that Obama hopes that ISIS and Iran will go to war and damage each other in a similar fashion to the heavy damage Iraq and Iran incurred during the war they fought from 1980-1988. Both sides suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties in that long war.
If an ISIS-Iran confrontation was indeed drawn up by the Obama Administration, then that's a terrible strategy. Not only have tens of thousands of innocent people already lost their lives to ISIS butchers, but the potential loss of life could be catastrophic in that region if Iran is invaded and decides to use nuclear weapons.
As the world's reigning superpower (for now at least), the United States has a moral obligation to protect innocent lives rather than foment wars and revolutions that kill countless people.
Thus, if the Islamic State's success turns out to be the result of Obama's Middle East strategy, then Barack Obama and all those in his administration who plotted that strategy have blood on their hands.
Think of all those innocent people that have been robbed, raped, brutalized and beheaded. That wouldn't have happened if the U.S. had kept some troops in Iraq.
And please don't tell me that we couldn't afford to do that anymore. We keep troops all over the world in places such as Germany and South Korea where there aren't any wars being fought.
So why not instead deploy them where they are truly needed? Because Barack Obama and all the JV's (stooges, lackeys, buffoons, clowns, imbeciles etc.) in his administration don't want to. They think they can implement a more effective foreign policy in the Middle East than the far more experienced folks in the State Department or at the Pentagon can.
Behold America--your judgment is rapidly approaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment