An alarming report from Kuwait has surfaced which outlines a 2014 Israeli decision to bomb part of the Iranian nuclear facility, and President Obama finding out -through a U.S. State Dept source- about the plan.

According to the report the U.S. administration told the diplomatic couriers the U.S. would challenge any Israeli flight and would shoot down if needed.

The Kuwaiti media report, while using numerous unnamed U.S. sources, holds a great deal of credence if read by anyone who has researched the players and their historical positions within the U.S. as it relates to Obama’s ideology.

Specifically the aspect of Zbigniew Brzezinski who we know holds a tremendous amount of historical sway with President Obama.

[…]  Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’”  (link)

Brzezinski is a key ideologue for those within the current U.S. administration. His teachings, his oration, his global belief’s as they relate to military force and U.S. Israeli relations, are factually embedded within the early writing of key foreign policy Obama administration advisors.

The essential premise behind Brzezinski’s position, which he taught extensively to the 1980’s radical leftist college circuit, espouses a principle that most of the U.S. conflicts in the Middle East are directly tied to our relationship with Israel.

Brzezinski influenced many people, including a young college student in President Obama who met him first while attending Occidental College. Brzezinski was so instrumental with Barack Obama that Obama’s college thesis was written around the ideas and principles put forth by him.

Other current ideologues like U.S. United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and Susan Rice also wrote their 1980’s college thesis around the principle that friendship with Israel is the bane of U.S. foreign policy.   Not only do they espouse not supporting Israel’s positions, these ideologues believe that Israel is the oppressor against the larger population within the Mid-East.

You see, Samantha Power and her supporters have Israel in their sights as a target for American military intervention on humanitarian grounds. Witness this exchange in an interview Power gave with Harry Kreisler, director of the Institute for International Studies at the University of California, Berkeley in 2002:

In another interview five years later, Power stated that we in the United States brought terrorist attacks on ourselves because of our relationship with Israel, and she noted that that relationship:

…has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics…

In the eyes of activists like Power, we are chained to a genocidal power by aligning with Israel. So, how do large chunks of Obama’s foreign policy fall into the hands of dangerous Leftists like Samantha Power? Stanley Kurtz explains the Obama-Power history well:

It seems reasonable to conclude from his long-term relationship with Power that Obama shares her interest in making humanitarian military interventions more common. Yet the president has said little about this, and the obvious policy implications of his ties with Power are rarely drawn. In his biography of Obama, David Remnick describes the beginnings of the Power-Obama relationship thus: “Obama did not strike Power as a liberal interventionist or a Kissingerian realist or any other kind of ideological ‘ist’ except maybe a ‘consequentialist.’ In foreign policy, Obama said, he was for what worked.”

Here we have the classic protective presentation of Obama. The future president reads a book by a passionately ideological humanitarian interventionist and quickly hires her as his key foreign policy advisor. Yet the obvious ideological implications of this are left entirely unexplored. Instead we are quickly reassured that Obama is nothing but a pragmatist.

There is a germ of truth to the pragmatism claim. Obama doesn’t seem to have a single overarching strategic perspective. Instead he “pragmatically” juggles competing sensibilities on foreign policy, ranging from multiculturalist non-interventionism, to postcolonial exhortation, to humanitarian interventionism, to a political desire to keep foreign-policy problems sufficiently in check to allow a focus on domestic transformation.

That’s right, Barack Obama is willing to sub-contract his foreign policy to fellow leftists like Power, Rice and even Brzezinski so that his team’s overall goal, the transformation of American, can continue domestically without the distractions.

None of this should come as any surprise.