As the Obama administration's strategy of showering U.S. support on “moderate” jihadists in Syria under the guise of fighting the Islamic State continues to blow up in everyone's face, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin (shown) is making deals to battle ISIS alongside Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, the Iranian regime, Beijing, and even the Iraqi government installed by Washington. Analysts in the establishment media worldwide variously suggested that Putin, in his dealings at the United Nations and in the Middle East, had “upstaged” and “outsmarted” the White House. Some commentators even declared Putin's regime to be the world's new, sole superpower after Obama was left appearing surprised, confused, and ridiculous on the world stage.
For instance, the headline at the Drudge Report — New World Order: Putin Outsmarts Obama — captured the thinking of countless analysts around the world. The link across the top of the Drudge Report, perhaps the world's most influential source for news, went to a column in the New York Post by Benny Avni entitled “Obama has turned Putin into the world’s most powerful leader.” And indeed, as far as countless consumers of “mainstream” media were concerned, the White House's absurd foreign-policy agenda appears to be floundering in the face of Putin's strategic cunning. A New York Times columnist said “today’s reigning cliché is that the wily fox, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, has once again outmaneuvered the flat-footed Americans.”
Even leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has publicly urged an apparently incompetent Obama to get out of the way so ex-KGB boss Putin and his new coalition can destroy ISIS and Islamic terrorism in Syria alongside Assad. Speaking after Putin and Obama met for 90 minutes on the sidelines of the UN's festivities this week in New York, Trump even praised the Russian strongman for his supposed “leadership” abilities. “I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he's getting an 'A' and our president is not doing so well,” the billionaire GOP presidential contender told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly. “They did not look good together.”
Writing in the Post, Avni argued that Putin had become the world's most powerful ruler this week. “The baton was officially transferred Monday to the world’s new sole superpower — and Vladimir Putin willingly picked it up,” he wrote, adding that Putin, like Obama, had also appealed to “UN laws” amid his unveiling of the new “broad international coalition” to battle ISIS. “Putin? Nobody applauded him. He’s more interested in being feared than liked. Then again, his words, at most, are meant to explain forceful action. That’s how Putin seized leadership from America.”
The alleged sparring between Putin and Obama at the UN came amid an announcement by the Kremlin of a new “intelligence-sharing” partnership between Moscow, Damascus, Tehran, and Baghdad. According to establishment mouthpiece the New York Times, the decision, which was allegedly “sealed without notice to the United States” between the various regimes, “left the United States scrambling.” The Times goes on the report on the supposed differences of opinion between the Moscow-led “anti-ISIS” coalition and Obama's alleged “anti-ISIS” coalition, which top U.S. officials and formal U.S. intelligence reports have revealed was crucial in creating, arming, and training the terror group to begin with.
“American officials, who have long cast Mr. Assad as the primary source of instability in Syria, assert that the Syrian leader’s brutal crackdown provided an opening for jihadist groups and that the crisis cannot be resolved until a political transition is negotiated that requires him to leave power,” the Times reported, without noting that the narrative was demonstrably false. “But Russian officials see the Syrian government as a bulwark against further gains by groups like Islamic State and Nusra Front and sometimes suggest that the defeat of the Islamic State should come before a negotiated solution for the Syrian conflict.”
The Times article, of course, omits virtually all of the key information its readers would need to form an educated opinion about the ongoing conflict in Syria, as well as the roles of Putin and Obama in the mess. But it does highlight the irony of the regime in Baghdad, installed by the U.S. government, agreeing to cooperate with the regimes in Moscow, Tehran, and Damascus in the effort. “We did not violate any of our commitments toward the international community,” insisted Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari in response to a question at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations about its maneuvers in support of Russian military efforts in the region. Officially, though, the Shia-dominated government in Iraq is trying to remain on good terms with both supposed “anti-ISIS” coalitions.
In his speech at the UN, Putin not-so-subtly implied that Obama's “anti-ISIS”coalition was doing nothing to fight ISIS. “We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurdish militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria,” the Russian strongman declared. Syrian dictator Assad was even more blunt about the issue, telling Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT in a recent interview that the West must “stop supporting terrorists,” a scheme he said was responsible for producing the wave of refugees flooding into Europe. Iranian “President” Hassan Rouhani, meanwhile, said his regime's views on ISIS and Syria were a “mirror image” of the Kremlin's.
It appears that Beijing is also joining the new and improved anti-ISIS club as well. According to media reports, the brutal communist dictatorship has already sent various military assets — including an aircraft carrier — to help the Moscow-Tehran axis bolster the Assad regime. “It is known, that China has joined our military operation in Syria, the Chinese cruiser has already entered the Mediterranean, aircraft carrier follows it,” Russian Senator Igor Morozov was quoted as saying in Pravda. Multiple senior officials within the new “anti-ISIS” coalition have also pointed to the well-documented role of Obama's “anti-ISIS” coalition in creating ISIS and boosting Islamic terror in Syria.
Ironically, perhaps, in the age of Obama, where U.S. troops are lawlessly committed to wars based on UN resolutions and White House decrees rather than a constitutionally required declaration of war from Congress or even a semblance of congressional approval, Putin asked his rubber-stamp legislature to approve his use of force in Syria. Moscow's Federation Council in Parliament reportedly voted unanimously to support Putin's machinations. In a statement, the Kremlin said Putin's request to lawmakers for approval of military action was “on the basis of universal principles and norms of international law.” At the UN, Putin also promised that all of his actions in Syria would be “in strict compliance with the international law.”
As The New American has documented extensively, Obama's “anti-ISIS” coalition was critical to the emergence of ISIS. Indeed, a 2012 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency specifically stated that Western governments, Sunni Arab dictators, and Turkey were supporting the jihadist-led opposition and actually wanted to see the formation of an Islamist principality in Eastern Syria to destabilize Assad. Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey have also spilled the beans, so to speak.
On the other hand, more than a few analysts have raised the specter of potential Kremlin links to ISIS as well. Of course, Moscow has a long and well-documented history of recruiting and exploiting “Islamic” terrorists to advance its agenda, though the links to ISIS at this point are less clear. Meanwhile, despite the (real or stage-managed) tensions between Moscow and the West, Eurasian Union architect Putin continues to faithfully follow the globalist regionalization roadmap to “world order” as outlined by Henry “New World Order” Kissinger and others.
Putin, indirectly and subtly invoking the memory of mass-murdering Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, pleaded for allies to join what he said would be “similar to the anti-Hitler coalition.” The alliance could “unite a broad range of forces” to battle those who, “just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind.” So far, the Obama administration, currently arming and training jihadists under the guise of battling ISIS, has not indicated U.S. support for Putin's “anti-Hitler”-style coalition. But with his own alleged “strategy” of backing jihadists to fight jihadists appearing increasingly outlandish on the world stage, the time may still come when that changes.
Of course, neither Putin nor Obama have a track-record of honesty, so all of their pronouncements on ISIS and everything else should be taken with an extra-large grain of salt. But it is beyond clear at this point that the fruit of the U.S. government's so-called “foreign policy” — from backing jihad in Syria and Libya to the constant “blunders” seized upon by Putin — has been death, destruction, and mayhem. Rather than continuing to bankrupt the American people with unconstitutional wars, UN involvement, “coalitions,” and military interventionism around the world, Congress should follow the non-interventionist advice of America's founders.
Photo: AP Images