Yesterday in Iraq, our supposed ally in the war against international terror, government security forces attacked Camp Ashraf north of Baghdad and killed and wounded over 300 residents. Camp Ashraf’s 3,000 residents are Iranian members of the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran, dissidents opposed to the tyrannical government of Iran, a government that is financing terrorists in Syria, Lebanon and a dozen other nations.
The State Department’s tacit support for the Iraqi government’s continued harassment of Camp Ashraf is but one example of the Obama administration’s hypocrisy toward democratic movements in the Islamic world. Obama sends the U.S. military into action to assist Islamist rebels in Libya but then allows the murder of democratic dissidents inside Iraq, a supposed ally in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban terrorists.
This is only the latest Iraqi attack on Camp Ashraf, which the Iranian mullahs have been trying to have closed down by pressuring the Shiite-dominated Iraq government. The U.S. military protected the camp until that responsibility was turned over to the Iraq government in 2007.
In the spring of 2009, Obama and his State Department stood silent while hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens took to the streets to protest a stolen election. Obama could not bring himself to intervene in that democratic protest, yet he has jumped into the Libyan civil war on the side of rebels who have direct ties to al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The only consistent thread in this chain of events is this: Obama takes sides in the Islamic world only when the dissidents are hostile to U.S. interests or seeking to overthrow a U.S. ally, not when they support U.S. goals. This Islamist tilt is also seen in many of his appointments, particularly in the State Department and national-security staff.
We do not have to think Obama is a secret Muslim to call him out on his pro-Islamist foreign policy. Plenty of American leftists have been in that camp for decades. In fact, what seems to be happening in U.S. politics is a three-party merger of leftist ideology, one-world multiculturalism and Islamist interests. What is emerging is a strange stew of leftist sympathies for every policy tilt that is anti-capitalist and pro-Third World wealth transfers. Let’s call it multicultural socialism until a better name comes along.
It does not bother the American left that Islam is profoundly hostile to multiculturalism in its religious credo, which aims at world dominance through Shariah law and imposition of Islam by force. To the international left, Islamism is a worthy partner for its socialist agenda because it is overtly and unapologetically anti-Western to the core. Capitalism is as foreign to traditional Islam as a pork roast at a bar mitzvah.
Where did Obama go in 2009 to deliver his first speech on foreign soil? Egypt. Who did Obama ask to be invited to the speech, in case his hosts overlooked them? The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1928.
Has Obama or his State Department intervened publicly in any Islamic country that is waging war on Christians or Jews? Has Obama intervened in Turkey, where the new pro-Islamist government supports Hezbollah but has refused to recognize and grant religious toleration to the historic Orthodox Christian Patriarch, which has existed there for 1,600 years? No. In Algeria, Syria, Indonesia or Yemen? No. Obama is silent when it comes to criticizing Islamic governments that tacitly or even openly support sectarian violence against Christians and Jews.
But it is Obama’s policy toward Iran that portends the most dangerous consequences for the United States and our allies. He passed up the chance to bring down the anti-U.S. Ahmadinejad government in 2009 by not supporting the street protests against a stolen election. He has tacitly accepted as inevitable Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He offers no support to Iran’s dissidents and allows the U.S. State Department to continue listing the People’s Mujahedeen as a terrorist organization despite the fact that they renounced terrorism in 2001 and have been strong supporters of democratic reform since that date.
In searching for some explanation for these seemingly incoherent and inconsistent policies, we arrive at one conclusion: Obama’s pro-Islamist sympathies are distorting his perception of U.S. national interests and tilting him in dangerous directions.