Obama’s 5 Worst Decisions of 2013


Honorable mentions for Libya and Bahrain, but who makes the Top 5 for President Obama’s worst decisions of 2013 over the Middle East and Iran?

Related Posts


  1. I like the beard.

    On number five if Maliki wants help he should stop taking orders from Tehran and supporting Assad while proclaiming he isn’t. Until then I wouldn’t give him a single bullet or anything else. He is increasingly becoming a willing pawn of Iran. His handlers in Tehran should stop encouraging him to persecute the sunnis in western Iraq if they are really interested in solving the problems. The current mess has been made by Iran and Maliki. Maybe Maliki should’ve thought twice about obeying Iran’s orders not to keep any US troops in Iraq. It has predictably led to setbacks and disaster. Iran’s goal was never a stable Iraq.

    On number four the main mistake Obama has made is to defend the Muslim brotherhood who are not exactly friendly to our interests. There is really nothing we can do while the Gulf pours in billions to Egypt.

    Number three the Israelis and Palestinians are hopeless. I don’t care what any administration says they aren’t solving that issue. Neither side is ready to seriously talk.

    Number two the Saudis can go pound sand. We’ve indulged them for far too long.

    Number one Obama’s Syria policy has been incoherent and shameful. I’m extremely disappointed with his Syria policy. It’s a huge missed opportunity to payback Iran for their meddling in Iraq and their unhelpful role in the entire middle east. Our primary focus should be to make Syria as costly as humanly possible for Iran. That is exactly what Iran would be trying to do to us.

    • I agree with you about the Muslim Brotherhood being untrustworthy. It has serious authoritarian tendencies incompatible with true democracy (a tendency to eliminate checks and balances and freedom of speech and press visible in Erdogan as well as Morsi and a tendency to deny women and non-Muslims full equality.

      However, it is not true that the Saudis support the Brotherhood no more than they intentionally support Al Queda. The Saudis see the Brotherhood as a serious rival. What they support i–via madrassahs–is Salafism which is highly puritanical, even less tolerant than the Brotherhood and kind of like Al Queda light. In theory Salafism is supposed to be an antidote to the Iranian mullocracy. In practice–once people pick up on its puritanism–it is an easy thing to move on to Al Queda.

    • Maliki is not taking orders from Iran, but he must be nuts to neglect the relationship with Iran only to appease the US and the Gulf Arabs. Iraq shares its biggest border with Iran and some 65-70% of its arab population are Shias like most Iranians.

      Maliki only received some 25% of votes but acts as though he got 75%. His handling of Sunni grievances has been embarassing but he has also been no angel for the Shia. The poor Shias of Najaf southwards especially in Basra continue to be so and lack basic infrastructure.
      At the same time it should be crystal clear that the sectarian Sunni violence against Shia civilians began many years ago and has little to do with the Iraqi armys killing of 50 Sunni protesters in April/May north of Bagdad.
      It is a scandalous and repetitive pattern of western media to mention that event anytime a suicide bomber or a car bomb kills Shias in Cafes, market places, on pilgrimage, in mosques, at funerals or even in schools. It is an insult to the victims who were solely massacred because of being Shias. This has nothing to do with the tragedy of innocent and unarmed Sunni protesters killed by the Maliki government.

      The Iraqi Sunni just make up 25-30% of the arab population. Now, just imagine what would have happened to the SHIA minorities in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia if their insurgent co-religionists would kill SUNNI majority civilians on a daily basis. The Shia would have been exterminated, even if it would require that the Saudis finance and arm Jihadi Sunnis from all over the world to come and take part in that event.

      • It’s a well known fact Maliki wouldn’t even be in office without the blessing of Iran. They are pushing him towards bad policies that have reinvigorated the insurgency.

        • Yeah sure, the Iranians are behind the surge of insurgent activities of which 90% of the victims are Malikis army and police plus Shia civilians among them many Iranian pilgrims.
          Sorry, but no thinking person can take this serious, but what you say clearly proves that Wahhabi propaganda at parts going hand-in-hand with western interests have been successfully in making people believe one of two options, both of which are bad for Iranians and the Shia:
          – Victims are mainly Sunni (Syria): The Shia (or the Alawites) are guilty and their motives were sectarian
          – Victims are mainly Shia (Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain): The Shia did it by “provoking” the Sunnis. The Sunnis are secular, rational and non-sectarian permanently innocent and peaceful people whose belief does not let them look down or even discriminate anyone. When they resort to violence then this is ALWAYS in REaction, as revenge and a last resort

          No sane person buys this, sorry.

          This however is the truth reported by an investigative journalist not by unknown twitter accounts:

          “Violence has now reached a level not seen since April 2008 with 9,000 people killed so far in 2013, including 595 civilians this month, according to Iraqi Body Count. The victims are mostly Shia.”

          “The one optimistic note is that there have been no revenge pogroms against Sunni districts by Shia militias, as happened in 2006-7, but that might change if the suicide bombings continue.”

Leave a Comment