from NY to Israel Sultan Reveals
The Stories Behind the News

Posted: 14 Jun 2009 06:53 PM PDT

When Obama went to Cairo, it was to signal a new era in America's relationship
with the Muslim world. No longer would the United States deal from a
position of strength, but from a position of weakness. His speech, filled
with unctuous flattery toward the mythology of Islamic Supremacism was
only the icing on the cake that had begun with Obama's post inauguration
prioritization of Islamic affairs and media outlets, the bailout of Sharia
finance banks, the diplomatic track toward Iran and the intimidation of
former allies such as Denmark and Israel into kissing the ring of Islam.

Now Tehran replied with a rigged
election that returned the homicidally deranged Ahmadinejad back to power
and cracked down on the opposition. The message is very clear. In return
for Obama agreeing to deal from a position of weakness, Iran will now deal
with the United States from a position of strenght.

In Cairo, Obama
tossed aside any interest in democratizing the Muslim world. And Tehran
showed what it thinks of democracy. Obama delivered his mea culpa for
America's vigorous fight against terrorism, and Tehran returned to power
the public face of terrorism in the Middle East.

While D.C. may
think that Obama's victory represents the triumph of soft power, Tehran
recognizes only one kind of power. The Mullahs see Obama's victory as a
final defeat for the Bush era War on Terror, a defeat they helped
mastermind by backing Shiite militias in Iraq, aiding the Taliban in
Afghanistan, and using Hezbollah and Hamas to disrupt Lebanon and Israel.
With Iran left standing as a major regional power, Ahmadinejad's
reelection is the regime of the Mullahs hanging up their own "Mission
Accomplished" banner.

Had McCain or some stronger US President been
sitting in the Oval Office, Iran might have actually tried to buy time for
its nuclear program using the charade of a Tehran Spring and the victory
of an Islamist, but comparatively reformist candidate. Ahmadinejad's
reelection is a sign of confidence that the regime of the Mullahs has
nothing to fear from the United States, because there is no regime too
odious for Obama to crawl before, and no enemy leader too ugly to play the
diplomatic game with.

If diplomacy is the traditional art of saying
"nice doggie" while looking for a big stick, Tehran knows that Obama will
never use the stick he has, and is stuck saying "nice doggie" over and
over again. And if the Mullahs press hard enough, he may even be ready to
give over parts of Iraq to the Mullahs, and maybe even parts of
Afghanistan too. Not to mention preventing Israel from taking any action
against the brewing nuclear program that will allow Iran to become the
supreme regional power, with a touch of genocide to boot.

Like
North Korea, Iran's diplomacy is nothing more than an increasingly
arrogant litany of "nice doggie", while it finds more sticks to hit us
with. With the rise of Obama, Iran is dispensing with the "nice doggie"
part of the ritual and openly scrounging for sticks.

Outside of the
D.C. and Brussels echo chambers, speeches by world leaders serve as a
means for powerful men to convey their intentions. When Ahmadinejad talks
about destroying Israel, he is saying what he plans to do. By contrast
when Obama gives speeches, he conveys no intentions at all. His Cairo
speech was long on flattery toward the Muslim world, but had no sticks in
it. It was all "nice doggie", which in the Middle East translates it into
the servile flattery that the weak offer to the strong.

As the leading Muslim power in the Middle East today, Iran sees the ball as
being in its court now. With Obama looking for a quick way out of Iraq and
Afghanistan, a quick fix Palestinian Arab state, and a fast resolution to
making the Muslim world love us-- the Obama Administration has turned
America into a weak and needy beggar, with no leverage except to offer
billions of dollars to anyone willing to promise to help.

Why shouldn't the leading terrorist regime in the Middle East laugh when it
sees the Obama Administration spending tens of millions of dollars to
convince Palau to take in some of the terrorists of Guanatanamo Bay. A
nation that behaves that way toward its enemies is not a serious threat.
Why shouldn't it sneer when Obama begs for America's admission to the Dar
Al Islam under false pretenses, by calling the United States one of the
world's largest Muslim nations.

In Cairo, Obama acknowledged the
supremacy of the Muslim world. Naturally acknowledging the superiority of
people who already hate you because they view themselves as superior to
you, did not actually achieve anything except to weaken the United States
and strenghten the morale of her enemies. Just as going to the Reichstag
in 1939 to inform the Nazi regime of the superiority of the Aryan race
would not have done anything to prevent war, but rather such a blatant
show of weakness would have helped bring it on, Obama's Cairo speech has
served as a signal to the tyrannies of the Muslim world, that the United
States is now in an inferior position vis a vis them. Tehran is simply the
first answer to that show of weakness. It will not be the last.