Ever since I was a small boy going to Sunday school, it was
etched in my memory that a big organization such as a church or a country, for
example, will always choose the person most effective to lead it harmoniously
during the prevailing times. In fact, no less than the Pope was chosen
according to this criterion, we were told, and this is why we had Pope Pius XII
as head of the Church at that time.
I became interested in the history that was unfolding before
my eyes as I watched (1) UN soldiers board ships that took them to fight in Korea ; (2) Friends of the family whose relatives
were fighting in Vietnam
flinch at the mention of the name Dien Bien Phu; (3) The early ups and downs of
Nasser's Revolution in Egypt .
And so I tried to match that history with what I had learned about leading a
big organization. Alas, I did not have much success for, I was too young to
fully understand what I was looking at.
I matured eventually and began to understand why Nasser was revered by his people following the
Franco-British invasion of the Suez Canal Zone. Why the French sacked Guy
Mollet afterward, and the British sacked Anthony Eden. Why America voted
for Eisenhower to be President, why Lyndon Johnson did not run for reelection,
and why Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. But nothing helped me understand
the Sunday school lesson better than what used to churn in the old Soviet Union
and later the new Russia .
I was not a Kremlin watcher in the sense that the term is
commonly used, but from the days of Bulganin to the days of Putin, I watched
with interest who or what the USSR-cum-Russia chose to be the man or
triumvirate deemed best suited to lead the country for the time that the
choice was made. And that's when the lesson I had learned as a small boy was
finally validated.
How does that help me understand things now? Well, there is
a difference between the Vatican ,
the Russian system and the Iranian system, of course, but all three have one
thing in common as far as I can determine. It is that they choose the best
suited person they put in charge at the helm of their ship of state to run the
jurisdiction in harmony with the prevailing conditions, thus implement their
agenda as fully as possible.
This is why I have something to say regarding the content of
the column written by Clifford D. May under the title: “Obama's 'boy wonder'”
and the subtitle “How Ben Rhodes helped the president betray the trust of the
American people,” published on May 10, 2016 in The Washington Times. Because
much has already been said about the Ben Rhodes episode, I shall not take up
this matter. Instead, I shall concentrate on half a dozen paragraphs that touch
on other topics. The paragraphs condense as follows:
“To sell the Iran
deal, the public was told there was a new political reality in Iran which
brought moderates to power in that country. The intelligence community
understood that the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard ran the country
with a strong arm. They faced no challenge from a rising moderate faction. Mr.
Obama disregarded the intelligence. He and his top foreign policy adviser made
up a fictitious narrative that they thought would sell better than the truth.
They persuaded journalists that Iran 's
moderates were open to compromise and eager to improve relations. In fact,
however, Obama's envoys had begun negotiating with Iran 's rulers long before the
elections. Indeed, from his first days in the White House, a time when
Ahmadinejad was Iran 's
president, Mr. Obama's goal was a pivot toward Iran ”.
Well, you don't have to be a genius of history to figure out
what happened here. It is that Obama's overture to Iran
convinced the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard that America was
governed by a man who wanted to start an era of peaceful co-existence with
them. In response, they did what a Pope or a Khrushchev would have done were
they going through similar circumstances.
It is that the Iranians engineered a situation in which
Ahmadinejad was eased out of office and replaced by someone who could talk to
the Americans and deal with them on the basis of mutual respect. The
negotiations began, and everyone proceeded with caution while keeping their
powder dry. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry responded positively,
the Iranians reciprocated and the deal was eventually made.
Now that this mission is accomplished, we can see that not
only did Barack Obama fashion a nuclear deal with Iran , he brought about the regime
change in that country many were clamoring for.
He did it without creating the horror show we are witnessing
in the Levant at this time, a region where the
Jewish style regime change was implemented by another President. This was the
change that led to the opening of the gates of hell no one has yet figured out
how to close.