When the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Hussein Obama, the Russian media made a remarkable observation: “Sometimes the makers of permanent war are awarded for bringing temporary peace.” The comment was prophetic as Obama would go on to approve more drone strikes in his first year in office than President George Bush carried out during his entire administration. During his presidency, Obama approved the use of military strikes in seven Muslim countries – Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, killing 3,797 people, mostly innocent civilians. The Harvard Political Review calls him a “war criminal.”
In this backdrop, it was hypocritical of the former US president to crawl out of hibernation – during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s official US visit in June 2023 – and comment on CNN that India should protect the rights of minority Muslims and that without such protection there was “a strong possibility that India at some point starts pulling apart.”
Obama virtue-signaling India about its human rights record – even as he has the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands – may seem duplicitous. But he can easily counter it by saying he had the best interests of those countries in his heart when he started bombing them. In his memoirs, “A Promised Land,” Obama writes: “I wanted somehow to save them… And yet the world they were a part of, and the machinery I commanded, more often had me killing them instead.” That’s his get-out-of-jail-free card – Obama can claim his bombing of Islamic countries protects him from accusations that he is pro-Muslim.
But the startling truth about Obama is that while he projects a veneer of sophistication and coolness (which he constantly reinforces by attending town halls in his trademark rolled-up shirt sleeves), the former American president is an apologist for fundamentalist Islamic groups; has a soft corner for Pakistan; and has a longstanding problem with Hindu India.
In January 2015, during his presidential visit to India, Obama took a shot at Hindus with his comment about so-called religious intolerance in India. “No society is immune from the darkest impulses of men. India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith.” He said India would become a more tolerant country when Indians “go to the movies and applaud actors like Shah Rukh Khan” and “celebrate athletes like Milkha Singh or Mary Kom.” No Hindu names were mentioned, implying Hindus are not role models but are, in fact, the oppressors.
In his National Prayer Breakfast speech in Washington, DC, a month later, Obama dragged India into a discussion on religious violence in Syria and Iraq. “Michelle and I returned from India…a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs – acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji, the person who helped to liberate that nation.”
Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist Charles Krauthammer was appalled by Obama’s undiplomatic outburst and said Obama was attacking India because it is a Hindu country. In an interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show, he commented:
“What the hell is he doing bringing India into this? I mean, it’s the first time I’ve heard India drawn into this discussion. Here he is essentially insulting, and it’s because it’s a Hindu country. It’s not Muslim. I mean, he’ll say in the name of Christ. He won’t say in the name of Muhammad and in the name of Allah. He won’t use those words. And then he goes after India, which is probably our strongest, most stable, most remarkable, democratic ally on the planet, considering all the languages and religions that it harbors. It has the second-largest Muslim population on Earth. And yet he goes after it as a way of saying, hey, everybody here is at fault. They are not at fault.”
While we will explore Obama’s Islamist leanings, it is also true that he supports anti-India forces because of his close ties with global anarchists. In 2021 the Obama Foundation accepted a $1 million donation from the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, who has openly said he wants to oust the democratically elected government of Narendra Modi.
Obama has always been sympathetic to Pakistan. His bromance with the Islamic country started as a 20-year-old when he went to Karachi for his summer holidays in 1981, splitting his time in the homes of two Pakistanis, Wahid Hamid, and Hasan Chandoo. “These were my closest friends,” he writes in his biography. Back in Harlem, New York, Obama lived with his drug-abusing, illegal alien Pakistani friend, Sohale Siddiqi. Chandoo and Hamid were invited to Obama’s wedding to Michelle in 1992 and even fundraised for his 2012 election campaign.
In fact, so tight was his Pakistani clique that Obama’s white Australian girlfriend, Genevieve Cook, grumbled that they only ever seemed to socialize with the “Paki Mob” even after he had graduated and was working as a business researcher in New York.
It is a no-brainer that anyone who is this close to Pakistan will support anti-India movements.
Funding Islamist Groups
While Obama’s anti-Hindu views are directed against India, the more concerning issue for Americans is his close nexus with Jehadi groups that are opposed to the American way of life. His whitewashing of Islamist outfits has made it easier for them to seed jehad on American soil.
According to a report by Sam Westrop in the National Review, Obama was not only sympathetic to Islamist causes, he actively backed terror groups. “Under the Obama administration, the federal government appeared to ease up on prosecutions of American Islamist charities linked to terror. This was a marked change from the years after 9/11 when scores of charities were shut down after prosecutors found financial and logistical links to terrorist groups across the globe. This effort culminated in 2008 when the Holy Land Foundation was tried in court on charges of financing terrorism. Federal prosecutors listed many prominent American Muslim organizations as unindicted co-conspirators.”
Westrop notes that Obama’s two terms as president proved disastrous for the US, resulting in a spike in the activity of Islamist groups in the country. “Eight years of a more permissive attitude has afforded Islamist groups the chance for a resurgence. Islamist charities do not just provide a means to move money; they also offer legitimacy to American Islamist organizations struggling to free themselves from decades of allegations of extremism. Islamist charitable endeavors abroad serve to sanitize the Islamist agenda at home.”
US foreign policy has never shied away from forming partnerships with violent dictators and murderous regimes. But at least such shady deals were done in the name of serving American interests. Under Obama, the US went down the path of supporting dreaded terrorists who have vowed to attack America and American interests.
It now transpires that the meteoric rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East after the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings was facilitated by none other than the Obama administration in cahoots with Qatar’s Al-Jazeera channel with its Arabic and English teams taking the message of jehad to the Arab middle class which was misled into thinking that the Arab Spring was a genuine street uprising. The chaos and political and economic devastation that hit the Arab countries was a ‘gift’ from the Obama administration.
American counter-terrorism expert John Rossomando reveals in his 2021 book ‘The Arab Spring Ruse: How the Muslim Brotherhood Duped Washington in Libya and Syria’ that the Obama White House altered decades of official US government policy and created ideal conditions for the terrorist group to grow while assisting it in grabbing power in Egypt, Libya, and Syria.
What the US cabal – centered around Obama and Hillary Clinton – achieved was to showcase the Arab Spring as a long-awaited awakening of democracy in the Middle East. However, the reality was the opposite – the rebellions were being hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, a secretive international Islamist movement whose ultimate aim was establishing fundamentalist Islamic rule across the globe. But rather than shunning these forces, as had been American policy for decades, under Obama, that approach changed – “first to cautious engagement via backchannels and finally to an open embrace.”
“The decision to engage the Muslim Brotherhood marked a historic change in American foreign policy, created a new paradigm in the Middle East, and set into motion a series of events that had catastrophic results: the Muslim Brotherhood’s resurgence, the overthrow of at least two governments, Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s transformation into the ISIS caliphate, failed governments in Syria and Iraq, millions of refugees and displaced individuals, and the resulting destabilizing migration flows,” Rossomando writes.
Obama instructed US diplomats to expand their contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and coordinate with it the Islamist group’s quest to seek power in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. Brotherhood activists controlled the narrative on events in Syria and Libya for the Obama administration and even the US media. Eventually, the Brotherhood was able to direct the policies of the administration towards assisting its rise to positions of power.
Says Hany Ghoraba, Egyptian political writer and the author of ‘Egypt’s Arab Spring: The Long and Winding Road to Democracy,’ “The core fault of the Obama administration was its adoption of false rhetoric, presented for years by Islamist activists and later liberal Western politicians and pundits, that there is a distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda. But the truth remains that the Brotherhood must be judged on its criminal and terrorist record, starting from the 1940s in Egypt and moving to other countries. The group’s founder, Hassan Al-Banna, and its main ideologue, Sayed Qutb, remain the main references for Islamist or Jihadist groups across the planet. Hence, attempting to separate them from the groups they give rise to is nothing less than farcical.”
Journalist Bader bin Saud estimates that because of the mayhem unleashed by the Islamists, the region suffered losses amounting to nearly $830 billion.
Back in the 1980s, when US President Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with a stomach ailment, the US media offered saturation coverage of his medical condition. In recent years, the US media has gone after Donald Trump’s tax records with a laser-like focus. However, Obama’s life as a young Muslim has always been a taboo subject. The American media’s fascination with the past of US presidents and presidential candidates fizzles when it comes to Obama. It is typical of liberals who avoid any conversation on Islam.
Being Muslim is not the issue. There are around 56 Muslim countries, and several have excellent leaders who unequivocally oppose radical Islamists. These include Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein, the king of Jordan, and Prince Salman of Saudi Arabia. They are proudly Muslim but don’t wear their Islamic faith on their sleeves. More importantly, there is no deception – they don’t pretend to be secular or make deals with Islamic terrorists. Several of them have honored Modi with their country’s highest civilian award.  In these respects, they starkly differ from Obama.
In all likelihood, the former American president is not Muslim, but his life as a young Muslim seems to be impacting his words and actions to this day. Thankfully, he no longer has his hands on the levers of power, but Obama continues to be an influential celebrity with the potential to swing votes in closely contested elections. As he did in June 2023, when he came out of retirement to troll Modi and India, he may enter the 2024 US election campaign to support an anarchist presidential candidate. This makes him a threat to American democracy.
Obama has damaged America’s relations with the Arab world and India. Because of the aura he commands in the Democratic Party, he may do further – and irreparable – damage by remote-controlling current and future Democratic presidents. The ex-president must be politely but firmly told by party bosses – on both sides of the US political divide – to walk away into the sunset and enjoy his retirement.
- Nobel Prize: A tale of ignoble peace laureates — RT World News