To no one's surprise, Obama admin seems to be siding with Iran instead of Saudi Arabian allies

As the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Iran continues to boil, the United States appears to be siding with Iran over its ally Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the message Obama's actions have endlessly repeated: that an alliance with the United States is worthless.  Natasha Bertrand of Reuters reports:

The US State Department on Saturday criticized Saudi Arabia's execution of Nimr al-Nimr.

It issued a statement expressing concern that Riyadh's actions were "exacerbating sectarian tensions." (snip)

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday that the conflict "breaks down along sectarian lines." He said the US had raised "direct concerns" to Saudi officials in advance "about the potential damaging consequences of following through on the execution" of al-Nimr.

"Unfortunately, the concerns that we expressed to the Saudis have precipitated the kinds of consequences that we were concerned about," Earnest said.

Note that this is a domestic matter, usually off limits for foreign governments to comment on.  While savage and foolish, the execution was a matter of the Saudi justice system.  This sharia-based system frequently yields results that Westerners find barbaric, for instance sentencing an internet blogger to prison and a thousand lashes for what is interpreted as criticism of Islam.  The entire justice system is objectionable but rarely is criticized by our diplomats.

However, this time, it is outraging Iran, the nation for which Obama and his Iran-born closest adviser Valerie Jarrett have a curious attachment.

On Monday, State Department spokesman John Kirby noted that Iran had arrested some protesters who ransacked the embassy, undercutting the Saudi claim that Iran's government had an implicit hand in the embassy attack.

Because the Iranians would never be so devious as to encourage the sacking of an embassy and then denounce it?  Really?  No wonder the Obama administration has negotiated such a ludicrous arms deal with Iran.  Gullible does not begin to express the stupidity of this position – assuming they really mean it.

The net effect, as Tony Badran, a Middle East expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it:

... only adds fuel to Iran's argument that the execution of al-Nimr "was a deliberate provocation" against Iran and its Shiite allies — which, in turn, implies that Iran is a legitimate representative of the region's Shiite Muslims.

"The White House is therefore sending a new message to Saudi Arabia," Badran added. "'Provoke at your peril.'"

That message, Badran said, is sent in conjunction with the Obama administration's vision for a new Middle East order — one in which Iran plays a central, if not leading, role. That vision, Badran believes, stems from Obama's desire to preserve a nuclear deal that will be the cornerstone of his foreign-policy legacy.

"Attacks on Saudi diplomats are attacks on the US order in the Middle East," Badran said, referring to Saudi Arabia's long-time status as a major US ally. "By not stepping up to defend that order, the US has essentially given Iran permission to try and tear it down."

The unspoken policy shift is clear: Obama has made Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, his de facto ally.  But he won’t state it so he doesn’t have to defend it.  It is a historic shift, and one that will create problems for America and Obama's successor for a long time.

As the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Iran continues to boil, the United States appears to be siding with Iran over its ally Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the message Obama's actions have endlessly repeated: that an alliance with the United States is worthless.  Natasha Bertrand of Reuters reports:

The US State Department on Saturday criticized Saudi Arabia's execution of Nimr al-Nimr.

It issued a statement expressing concern that Riyadh's actions were "exacerbating sectarian tensions." (snip)

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday that the conflict "breaks down along sectarian lines." He said the US had raised "direct concerns" to Saudi officials in advance "about the potential damaging consequences of following through on the execution" of al-Nimr.

"Unfortunately, the concerns that we expressed to the Saudis have precipitated the kinds of consequences that we were concerned about," Earnest said.

Note that this is a domestic matter, usually off limits for foreign governments to comment on.  While savage and foolish, the execution was a matter of the Saudi justice system.  This sharia-based system frequently yields results that Westerners find barbaric, for instance sentencing an internet blogger to prison and a thousand lashes for what is interpreted as criticism of Islam.  The entire justice system is objectionable but rarely is criticized by our diplomats.

However, this time, it is outraging Iran, the nation for which Obama and his Iran-born closest adviser Valerie Jarrett have a curious attachment.

On Monday, State Department spokesman John Kirby noted that Iran had arrested some protesters who ransacked the embassy, undercutting the Saudi claim that Iran's government had an implicit hand in the embassy attack.

Because the Iranians would never be so devious as to encourage the sacking of an embassy and then denounce it?  Really?  No wonder the Obama administration has negotiated such a ludicrous arms deal with Iran.  Gullible does not begin to express the stupidity of this position – assuming they really mean it.

The net effect, as Tony Badran, a Middle East expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, put it:

... only adds fuel to Iran's argument that the execution of al-Nimr "was a deliberate provocation" against Iran and its Shiite allies — which, in turn, implies that Iran is a legitimate representative of the region's Shiite Muslims.

"The White House is therefore sending a new message to Saudi Arabia," Badran added. "'Provoke at your peril.'"

That message, Badran said, is sent in conjunction with the Obama administration's vision for a new Middle East order — one in which Iran plays a central, if not leading, role. That vision, Badran believes, stems from Obama's desire to preserve a nuclear deal that will be the cornerstone of his foreign-policy legacy.

"Attacks on Saudi diplomats are attacks on the US order in the Middle East," Badran said, referring to Saudi Arabia's long-time status as a major US ally. "By not stepping up to defend that order, the US has essentially given Iran permission to try and tear it down."

The unspoken policy shift is clear: Obama has made Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror, his de facto ally.  But he won’t state it so he doesn’t have to defend it.  It is a historic shift, and one that will create problems for America and Obama's successor for a long time.