An interesting new discovery amid revelations into the background motives of President Obama to weaponize the intelligence apparatus against his political opposition.
Today former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Walid Phares identified himself as the fifth target in the August 2, 2017, Rosenstein scope memo. [The redacted section above] With this admission/discovery a more interesting background makes sense.
(Via John Solomon) […] Phares is speaking out for the first time, suggesting that one of the motives of those who made the allegations and sustained the investigation was to hamper the early Trump presidency’s foreign policy goals, including the 45th president’s long-promised plan to cancel the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.
“In my view, the push against the Trump campaign, and then the transition, and then the administration was on behalf of those who wanted to defend the Iran deal, to protect the interests of the Iran deal,” Phares told Just the News. (link)
As the story is told, the DOJ team led by Robert Mueller targeted Phares under the same FARA auspices they used against George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn and Carter Page. The accusation that Phares was an unregistered foreign lobbyist.
Both George Papadopoulos and Walid Phares were involved in connecting Egyptian leader Fattah Abdel al-Sisi with President Trump in New York for their first meeting.
President al-Sisi was a key political nemisis of President Obama because of al-Sisi’s position against the Muslim Brotherhood, specifically against Mohammed Morsi, the brotherhood installed dictator of Egypt during the Islamist Spring.
President Obama supported the extremist regime of Morsi, and when the Egyptian people rose up behind General al-Sisi to remove Morsi, President Obama was furious. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry were consistently at odds with al-Sisi while they were in office. However, there’s a lot of nuance because the Obama administration were very concerned about allowing the visibility of their support for the Brotherhood to surface.
CTH was very deep in the weeds during this entire timeframe in Egypt, long before candidate Donald Trump ever stepped into the picture. This new admission by Walid Phares, a highly visible critic of the Brotherhood, now makes a ton of background activity make sense.
“The Obama administration obviously was not happy,” Phares said. “Not just because Donald Trump won the election, but they knew that he was about to change things. The most important point that they were concerned about, and that was not a secret, was the fact that Donald Trump said during the campaign that he will be withdrawing, he will be canceling, he used different terminology, the Iran deal. And the Iran deal was a major strategic achievement of the Obama administration. Definitely, they were not happy with that.”
“And Donald Trump, also during his campaign, was talking about changing, shifting alliances in the region,” he added. “He didn’t want the partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood … So it was a massive change in foreign policy.”
Way back in 2009, shortly after taking office, President Obama chose Cairo, Egypt, as the first destination to deliver a very specific foreign policy speech. Within the speech Obama outlined a new approach, the U.S. would no longer take interventionist action to maintain stability against radical Islam. As an outcome of that speech the “Arab Spring” began.
When President Obama ignited the “Islamist Spring” with his speech in Egypt, what he really articulated was a shift in U.S. foreign policy to support The Muslim Brotherhood. As an outcome of the shift in policy President Obama helped kill the regional zookeepers (Hosni Mubarek, Egypt; Ben Ali, Tunisia and eventually Khadaffi in Libya) and Obama unleashed the big cats… radical Islamists.
Political Islam, writ large, is represented by The Brotherhood. Turkish President Recep Erdogan sees himself as the modern leader of political Islam using the Brotherhood to recreate the Ottoman Empire.
Ben Ali (Tunis), Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) and Khadaffi (Libya), were the first zookeepers removed. Obama’s U.S. foreign policy supported Muslim Brotherhood replacements like Mohamed Morsi in Egypt. However, Obama failed in the effort to remove Bashir Assad in Syria; as a result all extremist factions of the Brotherhood gathered to form ISIS.
Factions like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and ISIS all fall under the umbrella of The Muslim Brotherhood. The exiled Brotherhood leaders initially fled Egypt to Qatar until they were further driven-out by the Gulf Cooperation Council and ultimately given safe-harbor in Turkey, by Recep Erdogan.
Erdogan essentially holds the position of power because if Europe does not acquiesce to his demands he can open the gates and flood the EU with extremists.
Erdogan loved to play this power game against the EU and ultimately against the U.S.
President Obama embraced President Erdogan because ideologically the Obama administration and Erdogan both supported political Islam, The Muslim Brotherhood.
Erdogan’s regional arch nemesis has always been Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. As a general al Sisi had to deal with the outcomes of Muslim Brotherhood extremism, and ultimately remove Mohamed Morsi from office. President Sisi formed the Arab coalition that is now aligned with President Donald Trump against the radical elements of political Islam known as The Muslim Brotherhood.
The Trump-era U.S/Arab coalition includes Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Yemen. Additionally the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are aligned against the radical elements within political Islam (The Brotherhood), and the U.S. is supporting the GCC coalition with self-defense military purchases.
This is where the Northern Syria border with Turkey comes into the picture. Most of the neocon U.S. politicians wanted the U.S. military to continue the role of zookeepers to keep political Islam in check. In essence the Lindsey Graham and John Bolton position was for the U.S. military to remain in Syria to keep the big cat cages closed.
Senator Graham’s policy viewpoint means no exit from the middle-east, ever. This view is against the policy view of President Donald Trump.
Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan wanted to be the biggest cat in the zoo. His goal was/is the recreation of the Ottoman Empire and his alignment with The Muslim Brotherhood is purposeful to achieve this goal.
Ultimately the largest stakeholder in this dynamic is Europe, because they stand the greatest risk if Erdogan is successful and then turns his assembly toward Europe. Remember, Erdogan as President of Turkey is now the gatekeeper; and Erdogan is also a member of NATO.
Unfortunately Europe refused to defend itself; and the NATO alliance was/is too weak to kick Erdogan out. The EU weakness is visible in their position not take their own ISIS fighters back for trial and punishment; and instead, just like Lindsey Graham, the EU position demanded the U.S. to remain as perpetual zookeepers.
Making matters worse the EU refused to pay for the U.S. to remain as zookeepers, and the EU simultaneously fights the U.S. on trade agreements so they can continue their one-way financial benefits. This hypocritical and one-sided position is part of the reason why President Trump has long held a view the NATO alliance does not benefit the U.S.
In 2019 Turkish President Erdogan was going to enter Syria regardless of what the EU, NATO or the U.S. said about it. Erdogan has the support of political Islam and ultimately that was what was important to his objectives.
With Europe refusing to stand-up to defend their own interests, President Trump trusted his instincts and took the bold approach to remove U.S. forces from the untenable position of guarding the peace between Syrian factions and Turkish elements.
Instead, President Trump openly supported the Arab coalition and the GCC that has been assembling a military coalition to protect itself from the Muslim Brotherhood. That is why President Trump was willing to support Saudi Arabia with more weapons and U.S. training while withdrawing troops from Syria where the U.S. was having to stand alone to protect the interests of Europeans who will not protect themselves.
In one regional area the U.S. supports and defends Israel, Egypt and Jordan. In the Southern region the U.S. supports the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain and Qatar).
President Trump then uses economic weapons against Turkey to keep them in check and Trump warned Erdogan about prolonged entry into Syria and what he would do economically against them. Erdogan made some noise in public about the threat, but he also realized President Trump was serious. Erdogan realized he could quickly be a target like China; …and Trump doesn’t bluff; …and he’s done it before.
Meanwhile, President Trump continues to use economic weapons against the EU, pulls troops from Germany, and essentially leverages U.S. economic power against the EU for creating this NATO mess and refusing to defend themselves.
When considering a military option, President Trump reserves deployment of military weapons for allies that are: (A) willing to protect themselves, and (B) willing to pay for the support of the U.S. military protection.
[Payment can come directly (cash purchases), indirectly (benefits within trade agreements), or strategically (take action upon demand) the latter is how President Trump gets Saudi Arabia and OPEC to control their oil production valves.]
As a result of this strategic approach; and after President Trump removed U.S. forces from the border and gave Erdogan a taste of what he asked for (war); and after an initial week of severe battles where military casualties were too great to continue; the Turkish government and Kurdish opposition forces in Syria signed a peace agreement.
The border region has been stable ever since, and note U.S. forces are not involved.
We are out of one Syrian quagmire, the area is stable, President Trump’s approach worked; and, perhaps more importantly, Lindsey Graham was taught a lesson.
Quite remarkably Lindsey Graham admitted he was wrong and Trump was right…
However, conversely John Bolton, who relies on a career of blood-brokering, would not admit he was wrong and instead writes a ridiculous dossier.