The Obama Doctrine
The president has backed Muslim Brotherhood (MB) policy objectives in the Middle East and North Africa every step of the way. Generally, the MB has sought to depose or dispatch leaders in the Ummah who are seen as “Westernized” MINOs (Muslims in name only) and thereby slander the legacy of the Prophet of Islam.
The MB had been trying to oust Gaddafi for over 20 years. He was seen as too secular and not a true follower of Islam. In effect, by his words and deeds, Gaddafi slandered the Prophet of Islam. As a 2011 CNN article notes:
While jihadists launched a brief but unsuccessful campaign to overthrow Gadhafi in the 1990s, the Brotherhood focused much of its efforts on clandestine preaching and social welfare efforts in Libya.
In February , as protests in Libya began, Yusuf al Qaradawi -- an Egyptian preacher in Qatar widely viewed as the Muslim Brotherhood's chief spiritual guide -- issued a fatwa or religious ruling obliging any Libyan soldier who had the opportunity to do so to assassinate the leader.
In 2011 the Obama team got its chance for regime change with a “humanitarian intervention” to replace Gaddafi with a “moderate” MB-backed candidate. But it has been argued by Maximillian Forte in his 2012 book on NATO’s war on Libya, that the charges against Gaddafi were largely bogus:
Forte shows that the factual base for Gaddafi’s alleged threat to civilians, his treatment of protesters in mid-February 2011, was more than dubious. The claimed striking at protesters by aerial attacks, and the rape surge, were straightforward disinformation, and the number killed was small -- 24 protesters in the three days, February 15-17, according to Human Rights Watch – fewer than the number of alleged “black mercenaries” executed by the rebels in Derna in mid-February (50), and fewer than the early protester deaths in Tunis or Egypt that elicited no Security Council effort to “protect civilians.” There were claims of several thousand killed in February 2011, but Forte shows that this also was disinformation supplied by the rebels and their allies, but swallowed by many Western officials, media and other gullibles. That the actual evidence would induce the urgent and massive response by the NATO powers is implausible, and the rush to arms demands a different rationale than protecting civilians in a small North African state. Forte provides it, compellingly -- Obama and company were seizing the “window of opportunity” for regime change.
When Al-Maliki backed Assad in Syria against MB efforts to overthrow Assad and install a true Islamic leader he became an MB target. By backing the secular Assad, Al-Malaki became a traitor to Islam and had slandered the legacy of Prophet of Islam.
Al-Maliki, whom Bush had designated as “our guy” in Baghdad when his administration facilitated his premiership in 2006, did have a “cordial” relationship with the Obama administration until his support of the Assad regime against the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA) which was backed by the MB.
As Secretary of State John Kerry stated in 2013:
“I made it very clear that for those of us who are engaged in an effort to see President Assad step down and to see a democratic process take hold… anything that supports President Assad is problematic,” Kerry said at a news conference at the US Embassy in Baghdad after meeting separately with Maliki at his office. “And I made it very clear to the Prime Minister that the overflights from Iran are, in fact, helping to sustain President Assad and his regime.”
Indeed, it could even be argued that the Obama team was played in their support for the FSA against Assad as the FSA was a “fictional” front created by the MB and Al Qaeda for the purpose of gaining U.S. military aid:
The Free Syrian Army never existed. What did exist was neither free, nor Syrian, nor an army. The FSA was sold as an army of Syrian soldiers who had banded together under defecting officers to fight against the Assad government. The real FSA mostly consisted of Islamic brigades, indistinguishable for the most part from the other Salafist brigades in the war. Some of these brigades were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood whose local allies, Turkey and Qatar, were the war’s biggest backers.
Be that as it may, the bottom line is that the MB backed the overthrow of the Assad regime and when Maliki failed to get in line he had to go.
Even MSM couldn’t duck this story. Basically, just as in the case of Libya, the MB had been militating against Mubarak from the get go inasmuch as he was seen as another MINO, too secular and untrue to the Islamic legacy. Mubarak, on his part, kept them in check by brutal crackdowns. Once the MB in the Obama administration had Obama’s backing, Mubarak’s days were numbered. Out with Mubarak, in with the MB candidate Morsi. The final Egyptian response says it all. The Morsi regime was overthrown. Obama was accused of being a shill for the MB. MB was declared a terrorist organization and now Mubarak has been pardoned.
The MB was totally against the un-Islamic westernized Green Revolution which threatened to topple the Khamenei regime.
‘Tragic’ is the best word for the Obama administration’s failure to support the Green Revolution. In fact the Obama administration supported the hardline Muslim regime of Khamenei during the protests which, according to some reports, might have toppled the Mullah theo-fascist regime. Thomas Freidman’s lament In the NYT regarding Morsi’s legitimization of the Khamenei regime in 2012 says it all.
In 2009, this Iranian regime literally killed the Green Revolution. It gunned down hundreds and jailed thousands of Iranians who wanted the one thing that Egyptians got: to have their votes counted honestly and the results respected. Morsi, who was brought to power by a courageous democracy revolution that neither he nor his Muslim Brotherhood party started — but who benefited from the free and fair election that followed — is lending his legitimacy to an Iranian regime that brutally crushed just such a movement in Tehran. This does not augur well for Morsi’s presidency. In fact, he should be ashamed of himself.
Collaboration? Cahoots? Crypto MB? “What difference does it make?” The Obama administration’s “meddling” (the accusation leveled at Bush and Western involvement in the Ummah in general) in concert with the MB has been a flop and worse -- unless keeping Khamenei in power is construed as a success, along with replacing Gaddafi with chaos is a success and replacing Maliki while allowing the ISIS “junior varsity” to go pro is a success. And that is just the meddling part. Given a choice between theo-fascist Mullahs and their puppets as opposed to more secular, democratic-leaning political movements, the MB and the Obama administration have gone with the former -- under the pretense of “not meddling”!
All of the above is quite in accord with the MB motto:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration."