by NORMAN  SIMMS:

Ruthie Blum’s essential book “To Hell in a Handbasket- Carter, Obama and  the Arab Spring” offers irrefutable evidence that misguided foreign policy  with respect to popular uprisings against tyrants often creates worse problems  than those it seeks to alleviate.

While most commentators and pundits stress the present crisis with a nuclear  Iran, they fail to see the overthrow of Iran’s Shah and the subsequent hostage  crisis of 1979 as prologue and lesson for today.

Blum revisits that event and succinctly states in the opening pages: “It  is the story of how a short sighted leader of the Free World, in an attempt to  ingratiate himself with-rather than defeat- the forces that would see him and it  destroyed, enabled the rise and spread of a pernicious form of radicalism that  threatens the globe to this day.” That leader was Jimmy Carter but the  words could easily apply to the present occupant of the White House, whose  obsequiousness to the Moslem world and feeble responses to direct aggression  against the United States encourage our enemies and discourage our allies.

**********

“To Hell in a Handbasket-Carter, Obama and the Arab Spring”is an  original, fast paced, meticulously researched book that catalogues the series of  missteps that continue to be repeated as we confront our abject failures in  Middle  East policy, and the unraveling of the so-called “Arab Spring.”

Read it before November 6^th, 2012. You won’t be able to put it  down.

Ruthie Blum has graciously consented to an interview:

RK: You remember that when the so-called “Arab Spring” assumed  a new reality with the demonstrations in Egypt, Americans were inclined to  celebrate, announcing that democracy was now taking hold in the Middle  East.  This was, of course, foolish, to put it mildly. But how would you account for  it?

RB:Liberal Americans tend to view fondly and with  nostalgia the sight of young people storming the streets and screaming against  their government. You know, like the “good old days” during the Vietnam War,  when the so-called “best and brightest” were proudly stomping on their country’s  flag, denouncing their parents’ generation, and evading the draft – all the  while getting praised for it. These darlings of the 1960s are now occupying the  White House or cheering it on from the sidelines.

The demonstrations in Egypt caused these liberals to empathize, without  having a clue about the players in the Middle East. This has not prevented them  from adopting the knee-jerk assumption that Israeli settlements are the region’s  real problem.

The Conservatives initially lauded the developments for a very different  reason. They believed that the revolutions spreading across the Middle East  indicated that George W. Bush’s policies and views on democratization were now  bearing fruit.

RK: How do you think, as you suggest in your book, that Jimmy  Carter’s response to the taking of American hostages in 1979 contributed this,  related to this, if at all?

RB:Carter had been supportive of the ouster of the Shah of  Iran and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Though the Shah had been a true  American ally, he was an autocrat with expensive tastes. Carter believed that  Khomeini was a good soul – a harmless, modest religious leader who would serve  as a spiritual guide to a new, more egalitarian government. When the student  radicals (among them Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) took the US Embassy staff hostage on  November 4, 1979, Carter thought that the best way to handle it would be to let  the “host government” take charge. After all, the same embassy had been stormed  six months earlier, and the “host government” did intervene – after a Marine was  murdered, that is.

But, as days turned into weeks and then into months, Carter figured his  best policy would be to negotiate with the powers-that-be in Iran. Of course, he  didn’t really know who they were, but that’s a different discussion.

Finally, when he did give a green light to a rescue operation several  months into the crisis, it was too little, too late. Then, when the mission  failed, Khomeini and the hostage-takers saw it as a sign from Allah that the  “Great Satan” was being defeated.

Carter’s attitude that America was largely responsible for the hatred of  others towards it – as was Israel – did nothing but embolden enemies across the  globe. Obama has the very same attitude today.

RK:Jimmy Carter was a failed, one-term president who left  office more than 30 years ago. Why bother rehashing what he did back then?

RB: Carter may have lost the election to Ronald Reagan, but  his legacy has lived on in the Democratic Party. In fact, it seems to have  gotten stronger as the years go by. It is necessary to observe what he did,  because there is an almost exact parallel going on today – both at home and  abroad. It is crucial for Americans to see the connection between a weakened  America and emboldened enemies. These are enemies who oppose freedom of any  kind, and who make no bones about their intentions to spread their rule beyond  all borders.

RK:The Arab Spring revolution, like the Islamic Revolution in  1978-9, erupted as a result of autocratic regimes that the people wanted to  oust. Is the United   States supposed to back rulers like the shah and Mubarak?  What should Carter have done then – and what should Obama have done in response  to the current uprisings?

RB: Carter should – first and foremost - have looked into  the Ayatollah Khomeini and his teachings. He should not have decimated the CIA.  He could have continued to pressure the Shah into instituting reforms. This is  exactly what Obama should have done in relation to other autocrats and their  opposition in the rest of the Muslim world. As Carter did with Khomeini, Obama  was prepared to view the Muslim Brotherhood as a “moderate” organization, rather  than educate himself on the forces that were actually taking over all the  demonstrations across the Middle East. The only protests that Obama did not back  were the anti-Islamist ones that took place in Iran in June 2009 surrounding the  elections.

In other words, it is the job of the United States to support movements  that most strive for Western values, while remaining steadfast against those  that want to destroy the West. One could say that, in fairness to Carter, there  had been no precedent for the rise of radical/political Islam when he became  president; whereas Obama has had the benefit of decades of hindsight to know  about this phenomenon. It is this fact that leads many to conclude that Obama  actually sides with those radical forces.

RK:Events are still unfolding in the Middle East, and many  experts assert that these kinds of revolutions take time – especially in  cultures and countries that have no tradition of democracy. Why do you assume  that they are not moving in this direction?

RB:All evidence points to the opposite. The demonstrations  and “free election” results are pro-Islamist. Country-by-country, one can see  the spread of Shariah law and the decrease in the rights of women and  minorities, with a severe increase in the abuse of Christians. Some optimists  have compared this to the French Revolution, asserting that there will be a lot  of bloodshed for 100 years, and then there will be democracy. I don’t consider  this “moving in the right direction” while Iran is about to obtain nuclear  weapons – something that, if allowed to happen, will cause the rest of the  region to follow suit.

RK: Thank you Ruthie Blum for your book, your insight and your  answers.

Read more at Family Security Matters

Related articles

• To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the “Arab Spring” (frontpagemag.com)
• Carter and Obama: The deluded messiahs (wnd.com)
• Islam and Iran: Why Obama doesn’t get it (wnd.com)