Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: Yesterday, Walid Phares… In fact, he’s in the sound bite roster today, too. I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do. After the upcoming break, I’m gonna replay his answer about why Obama took the positions he took yesterday in his press conference speech in Turkey, refusing to identify ISIS, refusing… Actually not just refusing, Obama rejecting the concept of American victory, saying, “I’m not interested in this America winning, or the slogan of American leadership. That’s not advancing anything. It’s not what I’m about. It’s not applicable here.”

Even leftist journalists like Geraldo and others are scratching their heads, and it was Jim Acosta who asked the question, “Mr. President, when are we gonna go get the bastards?” And that’s when Obama blew up. “You know, I’ve answered that question two or three times already! You know what, I have. I have. And if you want me to do it again, then by God I’ll answer the question again!” And he launched into his tirade about how he doesn’t care about winning and American leadership. But even the media… There’s a couple of stories in the Stack. “Has the media tipping point been reached? Are they turning on Obama?”

Not so fast, folks.

But even they can’t believe it, and they’re not going to get behind Obama in his casual-ity about this. Sit tight. Further evidence of Obama’s alignment with Iran on all this.


RUSH: Okay, let’s go back. Yesterday, just shortly after 11 o’clock on the Fox News Channel, Walid Phares guested. He’s a Middle East expert. He’s an analyst for Fox News. He’s a professor at the National Defense University. And he was asked by cohost Jon Scott, “Walid, why can’t we take ’em out?” Meaning, ISIS. This is after Obama’s speech where everybody is scratching their heads incredulous over how noncommittal and unaffected by the attack on Friday night Obama appeared to be. “Walid, why can’t we take ISIS out?”

PHARES: Actually we can and actually we should, but the president has a different strategy. He’s getting a lot of pressure by the Iranians. Otherwise he should have long time ago allied himself, partnered with Arab moderate forces such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, they are fighting terrorism very much and very well in Yemen, in Sinai, in Libya, elsewhere, but the reason that he’s not going to these moderate Arab forces and asking them on the ground to be boots on the ground is because the Iranians are pressuring him because the Syrian Regime is pressuring him. They don’t want those areas, those Sunni areas to be liberated by Sunni moderates because they won’t have access to them. That’s the bottom line of it.

RUSH: Shi’ite versus Sunni sectarian violence. But essentially the answer means that what Iran wants is what Obama is loyal to. And because of the sectarian violence in all of these places like Iraq and other countries within the Shi’a and Sunni battle — you throw in the Kurds in Iraq, who we should arm, by the way. But the point is, ISIS needs chaos. ISIS causes chaos. Iraq benefits from the chaos, or Iran benefits from the chaos. They do not want the Sunni areas to be liberated by the Sunni moderates. They do not want the sectarian violence solved.

Obama runs around and talks about it as though he does, but he really doesn’t because the Iranians don’t. He’s actually aligned with the Iranians and, as Phares says here, the Syrian Regime, which is a puppet of Iran. And they are pressuring it. Now, if you’re saying, “Come on, Rush! That doesn’t make any sense. Well, ask yourself why in the world did Obama single-handedly lift the sanctions on Iran, which provided them $150 billion that was frozen, for them to upgrade their civilian airline, to fund further terrorist activity?

“Why has Obama singularly been focused on making sure that Iran can have a nuclear weapon in 10 years or whatever?” It’s not… Walid Phares is exactly right. But I have a story here with evidence that makes him right. It’s not just his opinion. The story comes from the Washington Free Beacon. Here’s the headline, but it’s the last paragraph of the story that provides the proof. “Obama Administration Weighs Partnership with Russia Against ISIS.” See, Putin’s out there claiming he’s gonna kick butt.

“The Obama [Regime] is considering ways to form a closer partnership with Russia against the Islamic State terrorist group, including intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation, in the wake of the Paris attacks, US officials said on Monday. John Brennan, the director of the CIA, said that despite ‘significant policy differences’ between Washington and Moscow on the best method for ending the Syrian conflict, he has continued to engage with Russian President Vladimir PutinÂ’s government about how to combat the [ISIS].

“US officials have accused Russia of propping up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and targeting US-backed rebels in Syria with airstrikes, rather than seeking to eliminate the terrorist group.” No accusations needed. The Russians are openly backing Assad against our allies on ground. So what’s the good of partnering with them? We will be further hampered in going after ISIS if we partner with them. Now, all of that is irrelevant to the premise. That’s just the first paragraph of the story.

The last little note in this story supports the theory of Walid Phares that Obama’s real strategy is to be more on the side of Shi’ite Iran rather than moderate Sunnis, like those in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS. In fact, the article mentions something simply dumbfounding at the bottom, and it’s this. Quote: “Mark Toner, State Department spokesman, said on Monday at a press briefing that US officials have also urged their Russian counterparts to talk with Assad’s government about no longer purchasing oil from the Islamic State.”

What? Are you kidding me?

So now we know why the US has not bombed the ISIS oil fields and refineries. We don’t want to tick off Putin and Iran. Let me further explain. If Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, you would do what Trump is saying: You would bomb their oil fields. Their oil fields are their number one source of funding. (I use that term because liberals love it. “Funding” replaces “earning.” It implies policy. “Funding” means giving people money.) The bottom line is, ISIS has commandeered and taken over a number of oil fields in the region, and they are deriving most of their financial benefit from the sale of oil.

It’s what’s fueling them, so to speak. Therefore, if Bashar Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, that would be it. Assad wouldn’t be buying oil from ISIS, and that’s what this story inadvertently admits, with this little quote from our State Department spokesman — who again said in a press briefing — “We urged our Russian counterparts to talk with Assad’s government about no longer purchasing oil from the Islamic State.” So Assad is buying oil from ISIS, while we are being told that ISIS is trying to wipe him out?

So if Assad and Russia really wanted to destroy ISIS, and if we really wanted to join them in destroying ISIS, we would first tell Assad, “You stop buying oil from them,” and then we would join forces and take those oil fields out, and they’d be out of money. But that’s not happening. Syria is buying oil from ISIS. Bashar Assad is thus funding ISIS. Now, this also explains why the US hasn’t blown up those refineries and oil fields that ISIS now controls, because we don’t want to tick off Russia and Iran.

It’s exactly what Walid Phares said: Obama has strategized that his best alignment here is with Iran in this fight, and Iran is aligned with Syria, which we now know is aligned with ISIS. All of this makes sense. US backed allies — moderates supposedly — being attacked by Assad? Our buddies, our allies being attacked? And we’re not doing anything to stop that from happening? All of this supports the point that Walid Phares made yesterday on Fox, that Obama is… Not rooting, maybe.

But the strategy that Obama has implemented and therefore the American strategy in all of this is to side with Iran — and thus with Russia and Assad — over the moderate Sunnis in Iraq and Syria who are ostensibly fighting ISIS, supposedly our allies in fighting against ISIS. This one little tidbit — this throwaway comment from this Department of State secondary spokesman (impression), “Yeah, well, we’re trying to get Assad to stop buying oil…” Assad’s buying oil from ISIS while we are led to believe that Assad’s fighting ISIS? And nobody’s taking the ISIS oil fields out because the Iranians obviously are supporting ISIS ’cause it’s in their benefit, all this chaos.

So Walid Phares ends up being more right than he probably even knew.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This