Political mistakes can be costly, but when they are made by the president of the United States of America, they can be deadly.

When in 1979, the unrest in Iran escalated, President Carter’s national secretary advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advised him to encourage the Shah to crack down the revolution. The more cautious State Department, suggested that Carter reach out to democratic opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. Carter did neither, and the worst possible outcome ensued.

Muslim youths, from all over the world, were dazzled by the unexpected success of the Islamic revolution. Nothing is more roborant to Islamists than victory. Victory gives them the confirmation that they are right. It is an elixir that invigorates them. Thus, after centuries of lying in its grave jihad was resurrected .

As you can see, mistakes in the White House can be costly. Who would have thought Carter’s lack of political acumen would cause the carnage of 9/11, so many wars and the death of millions of people across the world? Carter is history, but history is the best teacher.

America has elected a new president. Barak Hussein Obama, an unknown political figure, has emerged as the candidate of the Democrats and has won the presidency. He has mesmerized a great number of people. Is he the right man to lead the world's most powerful country? Does he have enough political acumen for the job?

What to Do with a Nuclear Iran?

Obama linked his rival McCain to the outgoing president Bush and said the Bush/McCain record on protecting this country, has benefited Iran, left al-Qaida "stronger than ever", and allowed Osama bin Laden to remain free and release propaganda videos.

So what will he do now that he has been elected? Well, to begin with, he has announced that, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks.

"Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art," he said. "Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

What Obama misses, is that the preconditions are not whimsical excuses of Bush to avoid talk with Iran. They are unanimous resolutions of the UN Security Council, agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Obama will have to ignore the recommendation of IAEA and defy the resolutions of the UN Security Council to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

What would be the reaction of the Chinese, the Russians and America's European allies who voted for these resolutions in the Council? What message would this send to all other banana republics that may want to violate the resolutions of the UN Security Council and the international law? Wouldn’t it undermine the credibility of the Security Council? Wouldn’t it be a mockery of international diplomacy?

Why Obama thinks the preconditions are unfair and unnecessary? The resolution basically says that Iran should stop cheating. Does Obama think it is okay for Iran to cheat and to lie while the talks are proceeding?

Let us say Obama, thumbs his nose at the IAEA and the Security Council and meets Ahmadinejad without precondition. Would this make the delinquent Iran weaker or stronger?

Obama’s statement that he would waive the preconditions to talk with Iran could not have come at a more propitious time for the beleaguered president of the Islamic Republic. Ahmadinejad, who was under attack by his internal opponents and weakened for endangering Iran with his irresponsible rhetoric on "wiping Israel off the map" and his reckless pursuit to build nuclear bomb in defiance of the UN Security Council suddenly got a shot in the arm by Obama who conceded that Iran does not have to listen to the highest international authority.

This is not just a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners, but also a setback for the Iranian opposition and the democratic movement in that country. More strength for the hardliners translates into more instability in the region and more support for terrorism.

Clarity of Language

In an interview with ABC television, Clinton was asked what she would do as president if the Islamic Republic were to launch a nuclear strike on Israel. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said unequivocally. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

This is tough talk, but it sends a clear message and clarity prevents misunderstanding, wars and loss of lives.

What was Obama’s reaction? He took issue with that and said, “Using words like obliterate doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling.”

The truth is that, it is ambiguity that does not produce good result. Clinton was clear. Clarity acts as a deterrent. When in 1990, April Glaspie, the American Ambassador to Iraq saw the massing of Iraqi troops near the border of Kuwait, she said, "we [Washington] have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts". She told Saddam Hussein that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements led Saddam into believing he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait. The result was catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed as the result. If she had warned Saddam unequivocally of the consequences, those lives would not have been sacrificed. Clarity saves lives. Obama’s lack of clarity vis-à-vis Iran can spell disaster for millions of Iranians.

Obama wants to talk with Ahmadinejad. What would they talk about? What are the legitimate grievances of Iran that Americans need to hearken? Ahmadinejad has made his wishes clear. He wants to build the nuclear bomb and he wants to wipe Israel off the map. How much of these are negotiable? He is convinced that it is through destroying Israel that the hidden Imam Mahdi will make his appearance. He sees himself as the hand of God. This man is motivated by faith, not by reason. How do you negotiate with such a person?

On Regime Change in Iran

Obama said that if he is elected he would engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" and offer Iran economic inducements and a promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.”

Of course, Iran has never shunned from talking. The mullahs love to talk. The phrase "dialogue between civilizations" was coined by the last Iranian president Mullah Khatami. These talks would allow them to buy time and to build their coveted atomic bomb.

Furthermore, the mullahs have never acknowledged meddling in Iraq, cooperating with terrorists, or wanting to build atomic bombs. They can give all the promises to make you happy and continue doing what they are doing, while they will get the economical incentives that Obama will throw at them.

For Muslims, treaties mean nothing. Inspired by the example set by their prophet at Hudaibiyyah, Muslims will sign any treaty, only to break them when they can get away with it. As an ex-Muslim, assuming Obama is an ex-Muslim and not just pretending for the sake of political expediency, he should know that.

Again what Mr. Obama does not know is that the mess in Iran is the result of the errors of Washington. In 1953 the CIA, instigated by the British, led a coup against the Prime Minister Dr. Mossadeq and uprooted the fledging democracy in that country. Then in 1979, Carter turned his back against the Shah, the good ally of America, and let Iran fall into the hands of Islamists. America is morally obligated to Iran, more than she was to Japan or to Germany. Unlike these two countries, Iran has never attacked America. Iran is a victim of America's misguided foreign policies.

Today 90% of Iranians oppose the Islamic regime. They want change, but an uprising against a tyrannical regime that has no qualm killing any number of people to stay in power is not realistic. Iranians need support to overthrow their tyrants. When Mr. Obama reassures the regime that the US will not support regime change, he is dashing the hopes of the majority of Iranians. Today, the greatest allies of America in the Middle East are the people of Iran. They distrust the European countries because of their dealings with the Islamic regime. By offering protection to mullahs, Obama risks alienating the oppressed people of Iran. Iranians do not deserve to be betrayed and stabbed again by another inept American president.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is the main supporter and financier of many terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the instigator of troubles in Iraq. The mullahs will never cooperate with America to bring stability to Iraq. Stability and democracy in Iraq are threats to the regime in Iran. Obama's views are naive. He does not understand the intricacies of the politics of the Middle East. The best solution for the crisis in the Middle East is regime change in Iran and not promises of its protection. Iran is the head of the snake. Islamic terrorism began in Iran and must end in Iran.

On Israel/Palestine Conflict

Where does Obama stand on Israel/Palestine issue? Well, today he is markedly pro Israel.

On February 2007 Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago to woo pro-Israel campaign donors. In his speech he expressed his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Ha'aretz last week.

Reviewing his speech, Ha'aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama “sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”

However, Obama’s views on this issue, a decade earlier, were very different. The pro-Palestine activist and the co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah writes:

Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago 's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Ali Abunimah, laments that Obama has gradually shifted into AIPAC camp as he has moved from small time Illinois politics to the national scene and is “courting the pro-Israel constituency."

Mr. Abumimah seems to be a bit impatient. Maybe Obama is just playing the political game of deception to get elected. After which he will be "more upfront." Such a dramatic change must be seen with suspicion. In fact Abumimah himself concludes, “He [Obama] is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected.”

From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barak Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. Edward Said was an outspoken advocate of Palestinian rights and vehemently against Israel .



On July 3, 2000, Prof. Said was photographed lobbing a rock across the Lebanon-Israel border.. Wikipedia

Michelle Obama and Barak Obama listen to Edward Said give the keynote address at an Arab community event in Chicago, May 1998.

On Patriotism

Carter’s lack of political wit weakened America, but he was succeeded by Reagan, a man with implacable patriotic credentials. Reagan was proud to be an American. He made America #1. His love for his country translated into strength, both economically and strategically. Communism fell on its own but one must not underestimate the success of capitalism during the Reagan era for the demise of communism. It was the strength of America that highlighted the failure of communism and convinced the Soviets that their world view is flawed.

For America to be strong it is necessary to have a president who is proud of being an American. Obama does not seem to be too happy with his country. Obama’s spiritual mentor is Jeremiah Wright, a man who hates America and who said “God Bless America ” should be replaced by “God damn America.” Obama says he never heard that remark. But he has been attending Wright’s church for 20 years. Wright’s anti American rhetoric is not something new. It is reflected in all his sermons. He has even praised Louis Farrakhan, a man known for his racist, homophobic, and antisemitic remarks. Obama has made a donation of more than $20,000 to Wright’s church. Is it possible to be a friend of someone and listen to his sermons for 20 years and not know him? Assuming Obama is not lying, can he be trusted to pick the right people to run the country?

As a matter of fact, Michelle, Obama’s wife, evinced the same disdain for America when she said she has never been proud of her country until now that her husband is running for the top job. Will she be ashamed of America again if he loses?

What Changes?

If the Obamas are ashamed of America they must have a different vision for it and if elected, it is likely that they would make some tweaking. In fact "change" is Obama's campaign slogan.

When someone promises change, one must ask what kind of change. Khomeini promised change and so did Hitler. They delivered what they promised. Has Obama explained what is he going to change and to what? That is what is troubling. He has not. As a matter of fact, now that he is seeking the widespread support of the voters, he is sounding more and more like other candidates. Actually his plans are not a lot different from those of Bush whom he loves to attack at every turn.

Despite the fact that he is changing his rhetoric and is sounding more mainstream to appeal to voters, I do believe that Obama will make some changes and that is what concerns me. I am afraid the changes that he intends to make are not what the Americans would want to see.

Who Wins if Obama Wins?

Obama’s victory will no doubt be a victory for Ahmadinejad and the hardliners in Iran who will be encouraged to crack down more brutally the opposition. They will jail and execute their opponents and the minorities to solidify their hold on power. Likewise, the terrorist organizations that are supported by the regime in Tehran will cheer and they too will take advantage of the weak America to score political points.

The Sunnis will not let the Shiites steal the show. They too will intensify their terrorist activities. Obama thinks America should back off and appease its enemies. The truth is that the more the terrorists succeed the bolder they become. The weakness of America will be their victory. The so called moderate Muslims who are now sitting on the fence because they think the ummah is too weak for jihad, will join their jihadi brethrens and the spectrum of the third world war and a nuclear holocaust becomes a reality.

There are other people who will also cheer Obama’s victory. More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees endorsed Obama's presidential bid. The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism.

Then there are the communists, the supporters of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and the admirers of the terrorist Che Guevara who will also cheer. As a matter of fact these people are actively campaigning for Obama (see also this video). Obama has promised to lift the economical embargo on Cuba if elected.

The Cuban flag with the image of Ernesto Che Guevara superimposed on it. It’s tacked onto the wall of an office in Barak Obama’s Houston campaign headquarters.

Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are. From communists to Islamists down to the terrorists, everybody loves Obama. Is there something these people know that the average Americans don’t? Why the sworn enemies of America are so hyped and excited over the prospect of Obama's presidency?

Obama is aware of the potential backlash. He is doing everything he can to hide this embarrassing display of affection. On June16, in his Detroit rally, his campaign volunteers barred two Muslim women from sitting behind the podium to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate. The women were offended, one of them said, "The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters."

I believe the man in the White House must be someone who can be trusted, someone with impeccable patriotic credentials who is not ashamed of wearing America's flag pin and puts his hand on his heart instead of his genital when the national anthem is played. Big acts are rehearsed; it is little things like these that can tell us about a person.

A trustworthy candidate is one whose views on vital issues have not shifted 180 degrees only recently. He must understand the threat of Islamofascism and must have the sagacity to deal with it.

Is Senator Barak Hussein Obama fit to be the commander in chief of the mightiest military force on earth? If we are still paying the consequences of Carter’s ineptitude, what would be the price if Obama turns to be the wrong man for the White House? The problem is that we know so little about this man and the little that we know is not reassuring. Obama is a wild card. Can Americans afford gambling their country and the world peace in these perilous times?