PrintDecember 11, 2010
Obama and Arab Imperialism
Have you ever asked yourself why Barack Hussein Obama began his presidency by shocking America with his grandiose trip of apology and appeasement to "the Muslim world"? Did you ever ask yourself where on earth he derived the notion that America is "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world"? How in the world did he come up with the notion that Islam has been a part of America since its founding?
Have you wondered why President Obama refused to say a word on behalf of millions of Iranians flooding the streets of their major cities in the summer of 2009 as they voiced their opposition to the illegitimate mullahcracy that has been enslaving Iranian people for more than three decades? Or why Obama allowed his national security advisor John Brennan to henceforth refer to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel for millennia, as "Al Quds" -- the Arabic Muslim name for the city? "Such a signal from an American Arab working in the White House could not be accidental, and instead comes off as a clear sign of an Arab tilt, a slight not lost on the Israelis. Underlining the anti-Israeli spin, the President just completed a trip to Indonesia, another visit to another major Muslim capital. Obama has yet to visit Israel."
Do you recall how Obama snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minster of Israel, at the White House during his visit? And how he is funding Hamas openly via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the State Department -- sending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to our sworn enemies, Islamist terrorists who are dedicated upon the destruction of Israel? And keep in mind that Obama is brazenly fostering this goal despite what he reads from his duo of teleprompters.
In the Washington Post's editorial "Mr. Mubarak vs. Mr. Obama," the paper clearly reveals Obama's weakness vis-à-vis Arab imperialism.
He should end the State Department's practice of allowing Egypt to exercise a veto over which civil society groups receive U.S. aid, and he should encourage Congress to link military funds to human rights, as it has for several democracies that are U.S. allies. Most of all, Mr. Obama should make it clear that he will not be dismissed or pushed around by Arab strongmen. If Mr. Mubarak gets away with it, others will be quick to follow his example.
Now, Obama has informed the United States Navy that the Persian Gulf shall no longer be referred to as such (though it has been thus defined for thousands of years). From now on, it must be named the "Arabian Gulf."
It is highly illogical and grossly irresponsible for the Obama administration to arbitrarily order our men and women in the Department of U.S. Navy to use the name "Arabian Gulf" in place of its historical name. This is completely in contradiction with Obama's Persian New Year Message to the Iranian people more than a year ago in which he called Iran "a great civilization."
One wonders what motivated this blatant action by the Obama administration -- perhaps a simple arrogant exercise of power or capitulation to the financial rewards offered by recently created sheikdoms and Arab lords in the Persian Gulf region who aim to further their world standing at the expense of others. In 1974, in an interview with the late shah of Iran, Mike Wallace asked His Majesty why the Arabs call it the Arabian Gulf. Here is an excellent response by His Majesty regarding this issue.
Appeasing the Arab countries (the same Arab countries who brought down the World Trade Center in New York City) will change neither the historical name of Jerusalem nor the body of water called the Persian Gulf. It is one thing for the Obama administration to depict the map of the world as is and another thing to manipulate it. It is one thing for any business to market its product and it is another thing to peddle something it does not own.
It did not take long for the Iranians around the world to take their frustration into the U.S. Navy Facebook website, which resulted in a lame response from the administrator of the site:
Appeasing the Arab countries (the same Arab countries who brought down the World Trade Center in New York City) will change neither the historical name of Jerusalem nor the body of water called the Persian Gulf. It is one thing for the Obama administration to depict the map of the world as is and another thing to manipulate it. It is one thing for any business to market its product and it is another thing to peddle something it does not own.
It did not take long for the Iranians around the world to take their frustration into the U.S. Navy Facebook website, which resulted in a lame response from the administrator of the site:
The reason why the Navy chooses to use "Arabian Gulf" and not the historically used "Persian Gulf" is that "Arabian Gulf" is the naming convention recognized by our regional Arab partner nations and used by the U.S. Navy in the 5th Fleet area of operations.
Iranians were quick to respond with their own sense of humor: based on the Facebook response and according to Arab partners in all fleet areas, this is what the United States would look like -- the United States of Arabia. Also, in a petition, Iranians have requested "respectfully that the U.S. Navy revert back this recent gross oversight that may result in unimaginable and irreversible consequences in fostering good relations with the people of Iran at a critical time in history. The U.S. foreign policy should support secular, freedom-loving forces to gain long-term benefits."
Demanding that the name of the Persian Gulf be retained goes beyond the fact that the Persians are rightfully proud of their heritage and strive to preserve the integrity of the historical documents that reference it as such. Iranians wish to retain their non-Arab heritage and strongly resent any attempt at denigrating or changing any aspect of their Iranian identity. Even inside Iran, the Iranian people have been constantly fighting and opposing similar attempts by the brutal dictatorship of the ruling IRI regime. The Persian Gulf occupies a pivotal place in Iranian history and culture.
Iranians worldwide, as well as all people interested in preserving the integrity of historical and cultural records, are deeply affronted by this arrogant action of the Obama administration. Acquiescing to practices of this sort is tantamount to appeasement, which serves only to whet the appetite of aggressors and violators. Precedence may pave the way for a torrent of infringements on every aspect of every people's cultural and historical heritage.
