Reason #13:  Betraying Allies (Giving Aid And Comfort To Our Enemies)

Categories:  Narcissism, Destroying historic alliances, aiding deadly enemies, personal aggrandizement over nation.

Mr. Obama’s lack of respect, indeed, even his contempt for America’s allies, has become the stuff of legend.  Just a few examples:

* When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown first visited Mr. Obama in early March, 2009, he brought a thoughtful, appropriate gift: a pen and pencil set made from the timbers of a British ship instrumental in ending the slave trade, the sister ship of the Resolute, from whose timbers the President’s desk was made.  In return, Mr. Obama gave him a set of cheap DVDs of American movies, of the kind one can find at any WalMart.  This was a particularly egregious insult in that Brown is legally blind and the DVDs were encoded in North American format—they couldn’t be played by the DVD players available in England which use a different format.

* When he met the Queen of England on April 1, 2009, diplomatically proper gifts were exchanged except for Mr. Obama, who gave the Queen an iPod loaded with his speeches and pictures from his inauguration.

* Mr. Obama’s insults of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been particularly egregious.  On one occasion in late March of 2010, during a White House event, Mr. Obama abruptly abandoned Mr. Netanyahu, walking out of their meeting.  This was only the first of many insults Mr. Obama would employ against Mr. Netanyahu and Israel.

* When the President of Poland, his wife and other important officials were killed in a plane crash in early April of 2010, Mr. Obama refused to attend the funeral.  He played golf instead.

Mr. Obama’s hatred of Israel—our sole democratic ally in arguably the most volatile region in the world–and his determination to prevent Israel from defending herself by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities is well known.  But surely no American president would betray an ally by leaking information of an attack on a shared enemy?  Surely even Mr. Obama wouldn’t do that?

According to former UN Ambassador John Bolton, that’s exactly what Mr. Obama has done.

According to a March 29, 2012 Fox News story the Obama Administration leaked information about Israel’s supposed covert attempt to establish refueling and rearming facilities in Azerbaijan.  If true—and Israel is not confirming or denying it—such an agreement with Azerbaijan would make an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities not only easier, but arguably far more effective.

The article noted:

I think this leak today is part of the administration’s campaign against an Israeli attack,’ Bolton claimed on Fox News.

The White House did not respond to Bolton’s claims Thursday.

Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country — jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis’ hand by revealing ‘very sensitive, very important information’ could frustrate such a plan.

Bolton later clarified his comments:

Speaking afterward to, Bolton said he didn’t have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.

But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that’s the case, Bolton said, then it would be ‘entirely consistent’ for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.

Bolton added:

Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak. This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out. It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies.

The leak, reported in Foreign Policy Magazine, identified as sources high-level US government personnel, specifically:  “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers.”   It added:

One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was ‘watching’ the activity and was ‘not happy about it.’

Writing in The Daily Mail, Melanie Phillips quoted Dan Margalit writing in the Israeli paper Israel Hayom:

What reasonable interest does someone in the Pentagon have in hardening the Iranian pharaoh’s heart on the eve of Passover, and indicating to him that he has nothing to fear? This borders on insanity.

Rational people would surely think so.  Phillips added:

Sabotaging an ally’s defences in this manner goes much further than Obama’s previous known position in trying to stop an Israeli attack on Iran. This actively assists Iran, and thus potentially places the lives of millions at risk from that regime’s deranged belligerency. Is this what Obama meant when he tried to reassure American Jews recently that
‘…when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back’?

And since Iran does not merely threaten Israel but is already at war with America and the west it has pledged to destroy, is this not in fact a knife in the back of the west itself?

If the story isn’t true, then there is nothing about which to worry.  However, there is substantial and long-standing evidence of Mr. Obama’s hostility to Israel, and his utter fecklessness in dealing with Iran, a nation carrying out a declared war, not only against Israel and America, but against western civilization since the Carter Administration.  Consider also his well documented attempts to prevent Israel from acting unilaterally to delay or eliminate Iran’s existential threat, particularly his obvious determination to prevent it before the upcoming presidential election.

Mr. Obama obviously wants to keep his Israel-hating base under control, and having to decide whether—or how—to support Israel when—not if—Iran lashed out against America and Israel after an Israeli attack must keep his advisors up at night.  Mr. Obama would likely lose no sleep over the issue; he’d do a little as possible, and nothing at all if he thought he could get away with it.  Having to prove that he has Israel’s back, rather than trotting out cheap rhetoric to that effect, is not something he wishes to do.

At Hot Air, Allahpundit adds additional fuel to this particular fire by reporting Mr. Obama’s formerly “secret” attempts to appease Iran:

President Obama has signaled Iran that the United States would accept an Iranian civilian nuclear program if Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can back up his recent public claim that his nation ‘will never pursue nuclear weapons.’

This verbal message was sent through Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited Khamenei last week. A few days before traveling to Iran, Erdogan had held a two-hour meeting with Obama in Seoul, in which they discussed what Erdogan would tell the ayatollah about the nuclear issue and Syria.

Obama advised Erdogan that the Iranians should realize that time is running out for a peaceful settlement and that Tehran should take advantage of the current window for negotiations. Obama didn’t specify whether Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium domestically as part of the civilian program the United States would endorse. That delicate issue evidently would be left for the negotiations that are supposed to start April 13, at a venue yet to be decided…

But the diplomatic path still seems blocked, judging by recent haggling over the meeting place for negotiations. Istanbul was expected to be the venue, but the Iranians last weekend balked and suggested instead that negotiators meet in Iraq or China. U.S. officials see this foot-dragging as a sign that the Iranian leadership is still struggling to frame its negotiating position.

Or could it be, based on three years of experience with Mr. Obama, Iran knows all it has to do is drag its feet sufficiently long to enable it to produce multiple nuclear weapons?  The Iranians have made their “negotiating position” crystal clear, repeatedly saying that it will destroy Israel and America and that it will never cease its nuclear program.  It’s never a good idea to ignore one’s intractable enemy or to minimize their sincere and often acted upon intentions to kill you.

All Iran likely need do is give Mr. Obama rhetorical/political cover—as Mr. Obama requested from Russian President Medvedev, with the understanding that he’ll be more  “flexible” if he wins a second term.  As long as the Iranians make the pretense of arguing over what form “negotiations” might take, they have as long as they need to continue their nuclear efforts, unless of course the Israelis act on their own.  They certainly know that Mr. Obama will do all he can to prevent that, perhaps even including leaking secret information about Israeli military capabilities and intentions.

This too is nothing new for Mr. Obama who gave classified British missile secrets to the Russians in order to encourage them to work a new “START” deal with him, no doubt so that he could trumpet it as evidence of his foreign policy wizardry.  In a February 4, 2011 Telegraph article, Nile Gardiner wrote:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

How far America has fallen in just three short years.  At one time, no American president would betray our allies, let alone betray them in order to burnish his political image.  While Russia is no longer considered our active enemy by many, there is no question that Iran is our vehement enemy.  The Iranians have been acting on their declaration of war against us since the Carter Administration, and have had a hand—indirectly and directly—in killing hundreds, even thousands of American civilians and military personnel.  If Mr. Obama did have a hand in this leak, he is not only endangering Israeli military personnel and the continuing existence of Israel, he has arguably committed treason by giving aid and comfort to our enemy and by betraying our ally.

Politicians and pundits often bandy about impeachment, but if Mr. Obama has betrayed Israel—and who can doubt that he would not be easily capable of such perfidy; it’s the Chicago way—we’re far beyond impeachment, legally and morally.  On one hand, I’m amazed and horrified to have to write about any POTUS doing this.  On the other, knowing Mr. Obama as I now know him, I’m not in the least surprised.

And we elected him President.