How Obama’s Mid-East Policy Led to Nazi Rebirth

How Obama’s Mid-East Policy Led to Nazi Rebirth in Today’s Germany

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

On January 12th, Deutsche Welle (Germany’s public broadcaster like BBC, PBS, NPR, and RT) headlined “Mayor's resignation highlights threat to German leaders: Arnd Focke, the Social Democratic mayor of a town in Lower Saxony, was regularly threatened by nationalists. Now he has resigned. Regional officials have repeatedly faced threats across Germany.” He quit for his safety, because carrying out Germany’s compassionate policies toward the flood of mainly Middle-Eastern refugees has produced a backlash that is becoming increasingly organized and dangerous to Germany’s democracy.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s policies in support of overthrowing secular governments in the Middle East (such as in Libya and Syria), and his attempts to install there new governments — which were planned to be allied with the Sharia-law, fundamentalist-Sunni, Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia — caused the exodus, from those secularly-headed U.S.-attacked Middle-Eastern countries, of millions, some of which refugees live now in Germany and are not accepted there, for many of reasons, some valid and some invalid. The resulting influx of millions of culturally markedly different people has given rise to a rebirth of Germany’s Nazi movement.

Whereas Obama’s U.S., and especially now Trump’s U.S., has refused entry of refugees from these countries, Europe (and especially Germany) has been compassionate toward them and allowed them in, and are now experiencing the political blowback, at home, from their admission of refugees from America's invasions to overthrow secular governments in the Middle East.

How and why did this happen? Much of the motivation was economic.

Muammar Gaddafi was a socialist who believed in spreading to the masses (instead of to foreign investors) the wealth from the nation’s oil and who consequently was rejected by the U.S.-and-allied aristocracies who control the private oil companies. Gaddafi was demonized by their governments and their media. After extensive planning by the CIA and associated coup-organizations, he was finally overthrown in an “Arab Spring” in 2011 and replaced by what they expected to be a reprivatization of Libya’s oil, which would be of benefit to U.A.-and-allied investors. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed, “We came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, hah!” Europe gets the refugees. As of yet, there is no clarity on who will get to sell Libya’s oil.

Bashar al-Assad was similar, in those basics. During 2012, Obama was well-warned by U.S. intelligence — and even by the anti-Assad ‘rebels’ themselves — that if he tried to overthrow Assad, then the U.S. would need to be using proxy-fighters to do it, jihadists, under the direction of Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch al-Nusra, and he chose that option and left to the Saud family to choose whom to rule Syria in the aftermath. Consequently, the Saud family selected the individuals who were to ‘represent the rebels’ at the U.N.-sponsored ’peace’-talks to end the Syrian ‘civil’ war. It was all a set-up deal, by Obama and his foreign allies. Even the pro-Obama New York Times reported on 27 April 2013 that "Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” But still, Obama insisted that “Assad must go.” (Though that was a common headline on news-reports about Obama’s position, he was too slick ever to utter that clear phrase. in his rhetoric he was the exact opposite of his successor, who continued Obama’s Syria-policy, but more bluntly.) Conquering Syria for the Sauds to control was the aim. It was a large operation. It was done by means of bringing into Syria tens of thousands of jihadist proxy-forces from around the world, and by far the largest number of them came from Tunisia. Europe has received the refugees from that U.S. decision regarding Syria and Libya — to replace their governments with Saudi allies. By Europe’s siding with the war-crazed post-9/11 United States, it has opted to side with the Sauds, and with jihadists, and, now, even with Nazis and other Western-style racist-fascists.

Trump has gone so far as to terminate Obama’s only good foreign-policy action, the JCPOA or Iran nuclear agreement, and to opt instead for war against Iran. He is pushing even beyond what the Sauds and other royal families in Arabia want. Perhaps Israel’s Government wants it, but America’s other allies in the region (who previously — along with Israel — urged a U.S. invasion of Iran) now don’t. Domestically, Trump’s policy is supported only by his base of Evangelical Christians, and by the Israel-lobby. The dangers to democracy in Europe could escalate farther. For some people, the rebirth of Nazism in Germany might be enough of a reason for Europe to reverse its foreign policies in fundamental ways. This should have happened back in 2012 — if not when U.S. and UK invaded Iraq on 20 March 2003, based on lies. But late would be better than never. If a long-time NATO member were to quit that anti-Russia military alliance, it would set all of the other needed changes into motion, on a new path, and could thereby salvage the future.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

ends

© Scoop Media