• Narrow screen resolution
  • Wide screen resolution
  • Auto width resolution
  • Increase font size
  • Decrease font size
  • Default font size
  • default color
  • red color
  • green color

World Council for the Cedars Revolution

Mar 19th
Home arrow News Content arrow Blog arrow Blog Items arrow Analysis arrow Rush Limbaugh Radio Talkshow - Walid Phares Explains Obama's Strategy
Rush Limbaugh Radio Talkshow - Walid Phares Explains Obama's Strategy PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 17 November 2015


Walid Phares quoted on Rush Limbaugh today - #1 radio talk show in the USA with over 13.25 Million Listeners!

A Rush version of Phares' analysis
Close to midnight I read a long commentary by nationally syndicated radio talk show Rush Limbaugh citing my interview on Fox News today. I had argued that the major reason why President Obama isn't crushing ISIS, and there are more than one reason, is the Iranian factor. Rush quoted several paragraphs from the transcript. Later I read on my twitter page and on my Facebook public page many fans and friends asking me: "now we see the big picture and it make sense. The US can dismantle ISIS militarily, of course, but there is something blocking such a decision. They asked me: If indeed it is because of the Iran Deal, why would President Obama accept the Iranian position on how to fight ISIS or how not to fight it? I had argued that the Iranian regime is vehemently opposed to any joint military campaign to seize Reqqa and Mosul. Why? Because if Arab moderates destroy ISIS, they will replace it and empower their Sunni partners in Syria and Iraq. This is exactly what Iran, Assad and Hezbollah are opposed to and they are fighting against. So President Obama has to make a tough choice. Would he invite the Arabs to attack ISIS and finish it? Or would he accept the Iranian position that no Arab Sunnis would be leading the fight? That's the bottom line and it is very simple. But more important, this assessment is very widespread in the Arab world. The only place where people are not aware of it, happens to be the United States, thanks to a selective mainstream media.
As for the question regarding why would the Administration adhere to the Iranian demand, the answer is vast and is in my book "The Lost Spring" and in the one I am writing right now.  


Walid Phares Explains Obama's Strategy
November 16, 2015
Listen to it Button


RUSH: I am just amazed at so much, I hardly know where to start. I'm driving in to work today, I'm listening to a couple guys talk about, "You know, for the first time I'm really worried about the world my kids are growing up in. I'm really worried. Up 'til now everything's been peachy keen. I'm really worried that the world my kids are growing up to is not gonna be the world that I grew up into."

I said, "Guys, you're about seven years too late." Now, they were talking about ISIS, but the disconnect. The Drive-By Media today, do you know what their big narrative is? Do you know what the big narrative in the Drive-By Media is today? What impact will what happened in Paris have on Obama's refugee program. I kid you not. That refugee program needs to be shut down right now because we have proven to ourselves over and over again that nowhere in the world can we vet these people.

One of these terrorists in Paris was a Syrian refugee or at least was carrying a passport to so indicate. The mother of one of the terrorists, "No, he was just under stress. That suicide vest he was wearing, he's just under a lot of stress." I say, okay, what university in America did he attend, then? What's he stressed out about? All of the excuses that are being made. Obama's press conference today in Turkey was -- you know, Michael Goodwin had a piece yesterday in the New York Post that said it's time for Obama to quit, just quit or leave, get out of the way. Andrea Peyser, New York Post, much the same thing. Ted Cruz has said much the same thing.

I guess I'm sad that it's an event like this that is waking people up, but even this event is not waking some up. There are American campus kids out there tweeting that this is all our fault. And make no mistake, Obama, before all this is over and what this press conference today was about was laying the groundwork for blaming George W. Bush for all this. I mean, it's the Democrats go-to. It is an election year and an election season, and if Obama can get away with it he's gonna lay all this off on Bush by saying we wouldn't even be there if Bush hadn't taken us there. There wouldn't be an ISIL, ISIS, if it weren't for Bush. This is what he's setting up.

But more than anything, look, I know it might sound a little snarky. I don't intend it to, folks, and I'm probably echoing the sentiments of quite a few of you, but I'm really appalled that there are so many people surprised that something like this could happen. What do you mean, something like this could happen? Something like this happens every day in the world to one degree or another. ISIS is out murdering people. Boko Haram is out kidnapping and murdering people. What is it, the fact that it happened in Paris is what has people all bent out of shape and shocked and unbelieving?

Why is it and why has it been so difficult to accept this enemy? Well, one of the reasons is that the leadership of the United States will not even identify this enemy. And, believe me, that matters when we're talking about the low-information crowd. When the president of the United States refuses to use the word "terrorism," "Islamic terrorism," "Muslim extremists," anything of the sort that accurately describe who these people are, believe me, the reverence and respect for the office of the presidency is such that a lot of people, low-information people, aren't gonna get it. They're never gonna hear it.

And now the Drive-By Media narrative here on how the Paris attacks might affect Syrian refugees. I mean, it's all over the place. Yeah, like we can't fall into ISIS' trap and close the door to refugees. That will just make Muslims mad. We have to prove to the Muslims that we continue to care, despite what happened in Paris. The EU needs to let in even more Muslim refugees, Syrian refugees, and of course among them are more Muslim terrorists. And then the same argument is being made here about the United States. And everybody wonders why Donald Trump's at 42%.

Donald Trump's out there saying we need to kick their ass. We need to blow up their oil fields. We need to take them out. And I want you to listen to a sound bite here, synthesize all of this. 'Cause everybody's wondering -- you know, Obama had a press conference today, and everybody's wondering what he said. What in the world did he say? It's not what he said. It's what he would not say. He would not condemn this. Reporter after reporter after reporter, sycophant after sycophant after sycophant stood up and gave Obama a clear path to just come down on these people. One reporter even stood up, the third time the question was asked because the first two questions Obama punted. He just will not provide the answer that everybody wants, or even expects. That's even more to the point.

So the third reporter stands up and says, "Mr. President, I know what you've said prior, but let me just cut to the chase. When are we gonna find these bastards and kill 'em?" And Obama got mad. (paraphrasing) "I've already answered that question two or three times. I don't know what more I can say about it but if you want me to answer it I'll go ahead." And then he doesn't answer it. He keeps talking about the strategy that we've got. And he keeps talking about, despite what you saw in Paris, progress is being made. I mean, totally tone deaf. And this goes along with the -- was it karma or what that on Friday Obama says we got 'em contained, man, we got ISIL, we got ISIL contained. The JV team, we got 'em contained, and then what happened Friday night happened. And the White House is still trying to tell, "Oh, yeah, yeah, we know exactly what we're doing. We got 'em contained."

Retired military people are all over television unbelievingly -- well, they are being open in their disgust and their opposition and the fact that they're totally stymied by what Obama's doing. Remember, we got two kinds of generals there in the Pentagon. We got warrior generals and we've got politically correct generals, and the politically correct faction is alive and well and may be even running the show.

But about 10 minutes after 11 this morning Walid Phares was on Fox News, and Walid Phares is the National Defense University professor, and he is a longtime commentator and analyst on issues in the Middle East. And Jon Scott, the cohost at Fox News said, "Walid, why can't we take these people out? We know where they are. We've got people willing if we would just arm, the Kurds, we've got people willing to take them out." If you want to know from an expert analyst why Obama is hemming and hawing -- it's gonna infuriate you -- if you want to know this man's opinion why Obama is punting, stalling, obfuscating, dancing around the answers to questions, here is what Mr. Phares said in response to the question: "Walid, why can't we take them out?"

PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.

RUSH: Did you get that? I had to listen to it a couple of times because I didn't have closed-captioning. So I've got the transcript here. Basically -- and it makes perfect sense when you know this and if you accept this. The reason why Obama is tap dancing and hem-hawing around and not answering the question is because he doesn't dare. The reason we don't take ISIS out is because the Iranians don't want 'em taken out. The reason we don't take ISIS out is because the Syrian Regime doesn't want 'em taken out.

Okay, why do we care what the Iranians -- you tell me. (interruption) Well, yeah, obviously to preserve the deal, the nuke deal, but it goes deeper than that. This is kind of convoluted. I'm gonna do my best here at trying to explain this, 'cause it's really, really convoluted because Obama thinks in convoluted ways. But first let me read Phares' answer here again, because it went by pretty quickly.

(paraphrasing) "Obama is getting his strategy, fighting ISIS, is due to the pressure he's getting by the Iranians. He should have long ago allied himself with Arab moderate forces." Now, that's kind of a curveball because there's nothing moderate about the Saudis, particularly in terms of militant Islam. However, what he's talking about here is that the Saudis don't like ISIS any more than we do and they don't like the Iranians. Therefore the Saudis are aligned with the Jordanians, and the Saudis are aligned with Egypt, and the Saudis are aligned with Dubai and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, and they are moderates. I mean, they're building Las Vegas in the Middle East, the UAE, minus the alcohol except in the hotels. That's what they are.

And those people, those nations are indeed fighting ISIS, and they are fighting Al-Qaeda for their own reasons, but nevertheless we do have a common enemy, but Obama's not aligning with the Saudis. He's not allying with Jordan or Egypt or the UAE. He is aligning himself with Iran. The reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab nations, Saudis, Jordanians, Egyptians, UAE, and asking them to contribute boots on the ground along with us, is because the Iranians are pressuring him, because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. Iran and Syria do not want moderate Sunni Arab, like Mosul and other places, they do not want these Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because then the Iranians won't control them, the Iranians won't have access to them.

The bottom line is, according to Walid Phares, is that Obama is choosing sides. The Iranians want to run in the Middle East, for all intents and purposes, and the Syrians, and that alliance, and that's the alliance he's thrown down with. Now, it's up for us to go figure out why the Iranian nuke deal. I think with Obama you can't take the politics out of anything. Obama gave an answer, and I spent all morning trying to find it. I read it yesterday, I didn't make note of it, I didn't save it, I don't remember where, and I don't remember the name of the writer, and so I didn't find it. Thought I knew where it was. I spent a half hour looking for it. So much for the magic of search.

But it was a story about how Obama has said recently that wherever there is sectarian violence, we aren't gonna get involved. We're not gonna touch ground. We're not gonna have boots on the ground. We're not gonna contribute. We're not gonna donate. We're not gonna do one thing in any Middle Eastern area where there is sectarian violence going on because Obama says no matter if we beat back one group, we don't know who's gonna replace them. That's one of the strategies, by the way, that Phares mentions here that's not in the bite. Obama is worried about taking out ISIS 'cause he doesn't know what's gonna replace them. At least ISIS is known. I mean, this is one of the opinions that Phares mentioned. We don't have the bite. Cookie, don't go get it. It's not necessary. I just mentioned it.

But the sectarian violence aspect of this all relates to being able to blame all this on George W. Bush. Sectarian violence defined as Sunni versus Shi'ite, for example. And in any Middle Eastern country where there is sectarian violence, in other words, where there isn't unity of Islam or anything else, we're not gonna get involved. And we're not gonna get involved even if what is happening in these places leads to terrorism against Americans or against the United States. We're not gonna get involved until those nations, countries, areas, figure out and sort out their own differences. And those differences exist because Bush went to Iraq.

The sectarian violence that exists over there is because Bush went to Iraq and invaded Iraq. And if that hadn't happened none of this would have happened and that's what they're trying to lay the groundwork for making the case of at the White House. That's what all of this hem-hawing around is about, in my humble opinion, because anything in the Middle East, particularly coming up on an election year, is always gonna be Bush's fault.

So Obama is playing patty-cake with the media today, not answering, avoiding, looking like an incompetent boob in the process. But believe me, there is a strategy behind this. And the strategy is to protect the Democrat Party and his legacy. Obama is responsible for ISIS. We had a safe and secure Iraq that we would not maintain. Obama cleared out, pulled everybody out, told them they're on their own because the Democrat base, lunatic base demanded it. But at this point it's kind of moot to get involved in the blame game, because the reality of dealing with these people is paramount. And that's where Obama is failing, big time. And this is not -- you know, when I said I hope Obama fails but he hasn't, he's been immediately and immensely successful, this is a genuine failure. This is a failure of American leadership.

We do not have to be the world's cop. We don't have to have boots on the ground anywhere to provide moral leadership. Obama doesn't think we're qualified. Obama doesn't think we have the character, we haven't earned it. We have always inserted ourselves in this region of the world. We've inserted ourselves everywhere around the world. We've never had the right to do it, and we're not gonna resume doing it now. We're gonna get out. The Democrat Party debate on Saturday, what a joke. The lowest rated Democrat debate and the Democrat National Committee is getting a lot of grief now from the candidates, "Why are you putting us on Saturday night when nobody's watching?" The DNC, Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, said be thankful nobody saw it, you people are a bunch of idiots.


RUSH: Look, folks, back to Walid Phares' answer here on Fox about why we're playing patty-cake with ISIS. And it is a stark contrast. You know, while Obama was doing this really -- I don't know. It was a wimpish -- how to describe this press conference he did today. At the same time Francois Hollande, president of France was over at his Congress practically asking for a declaration of war against ISIS and laying out in no certain terms how they're gonna take 'em out.

I mean, it was a juxtaposition I never thought I would see. Here we have the surrender caucus in France manning up, and the United States trading places and becoming, if not the surrender caucus, the ho-hum caucus. So what we've learned here from Walid Phares -- and his analyst credentials to me are top notch -- Shi'a Iran wants the Sunni regions of the Middle East destabilized, therefore they want ISIS to continue to operate. ISIS destabilizes. That will ultimately help Iran take over the entire region in the future. Obama gave Iran money by lifting the sanctions. He's given them permission for nukes, which is a giant threat leverage that Iran's gonna have. So it seems that Obama has chosen Shi'a Iran to be the dominant force in the Middle East. That's what Walid Phares is essentially saying the strategy is.


RUSH: I want you to listen to his answer again. Walid Phares on Fox News an hour and a half ago, he was asked the question everybody's asking, but everybody was intensely asking it after this embarrassment of an Obama press conference this morning. Walid Phares answering, "Why can't we take 'em out?" That was the question he's asked. Why can't we take 'em out? Why don't we take 'em out? What in the world, why doesn't Obama even act like they're the enemy?

PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He's getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he's not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don't want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won't have access to them. That's the bottom line of it.

RUSH: That's incredible if that's true, that what Iran wants in the Middle East is what Obama is interested in. But when you look at recent events, it makes perfect sense. Shi'a Iran wants the Sunni regions of the Middle East destabilized, always at war, always in chaos. Kind of like Obama wants middle America always at war and in a state of chaos and unrest. Now, who can keep the Middle East destabilized? ISIS. Who is destabilizing the Middle East? ISIS. Who's not really taking any action to stop ISIS? The United States. Who is the leader of such action in the world were it to happen? United States. There's no leadership. We are not at all serious. It's obvious. We are not at all serious about dealing with ISIS, and now, according to Walid Phares, we know why.

ISIS continues to destabilize the Sunni regions of the Middle East. That ultimately helps Iran take over the entire region in the future. We have an alliance out there we're refusing to join of the Saudis, the Jordanians, Egyptians, and the United Arab Emirates who are fighting terrorism, including ISIS, all over the region. If you look at actual events on the ground, Obama, with Republican help, the Corker Bill in the Senate, lifting sanctions against Iran, $150 billion frozen that Iran is now going to get. They are also going to build nuclear weapons. They have been granted permission to build nuclear weapons by virtue of our nuke deal with them. So they get $150 billion of their assets frozen because we secure the lifting of sanctions, and they can never be slapped back on. There's some Republican candidates, "Hey, go ahead, and if Iran violates, we slap the sanctions back on." We can't. We would have to go back and rewrite new legislation that Obama would have to sign.

We can't just slap sanctions back on, folks. They have been permanently lifted. That equals $150 billion. You add that, the Iranians have permission to go ahead with their nuclear weapons program. And it appears that Obama has chosen Shi'a Iran to be the dominant force in a region of Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. That appears to be the arrangement, if Walid Phares is right. And if there's anybody who would know, it would be him. Nothing else makes any sense. Nothing else makes any common sense.

Innocent civilians being killed around the world, Christians are being chased out of their homes and killed all over the world. People are being beheaded by ISIS and Obama twiddles his thumbs and basically says, "Well, we got a strategy to deal with it, they're the JV team. We're actually containing them. We're doing a good job of containing them." Why would Obama be sympathetic to the Iranians? Why can't he say "militant Islamic terrorism"? He can't even provide people validation for what they're already thinking about ISIS. He will not even strongly condemn ISIS. It's just breathtaking to behold. And, as evidenced by what I heard earlier today, a bunch of sad-sack people who think Obama's great because he's a liberal Democrat. Actually, they don't think Obama's great. They just hate Republicans, conservatives or whatever. Obama's cool and he's hip and the Republicans are a bunch of whatever. Obama's destroying the health care system. He's destroying the United States economy. He's transforming this country, and these guys today say, "Oh, yeah, well, you know what, this ISIS stuff going on in Paris, it's the first time I'm worried about the future my kids are growing up into."

I said, "Where have you clowns been? You should have been alarmed about all this long before Friday." But but but but but if that's what it takes to wake people up, then fine. We'll deal with it as we get it.






Last Updated ( Tuesday, 17 November 2015 )
< Prev   Next >

In Memory

Rafik Hariri
Rafik HaririIn Memory of Rafik Hariri, he rebuilt Beirut, at the time of his brutal Assassination Lebanon witnessed the birth of the Cedars Revolution
Gebran Tueni
Gebran TueniIn Memory of Gebran Tueni One of the most Prominent founders of the Cedars Revolution
Sheikh Pierre Gemayel
Sheikh Pierre GemayelIn Memory of Sheikh Pierre Gemayel Another Prominent founder of the Cedars Revolution
George Hawi
George HawiIn Memory of George Hawi another Anti-Syrian who supported the formation of the Cedars Revolution