Now explain this: US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

If it were published in some yellow rag it could have been ignored as an attempt at backbiting, so popular this days. As it stands, unbelievable as it might sound, it is another mindboggling fact from the long list of failures of the White House in its unending saga of Middle East political blunders.

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt.

...

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month.

The officials say they are looking at new ways to take the fight to Isil without seeking US approval.

Of course, there is a (political) reason for this travesty. Huffpost article on the subject explains it:

Under current law, the U.S. government is only allowed to send weapons to internationally recognized sovereign governments -- not to autonomous regions within countries like Kurdistan. Since they cannot receive U.S. equipment directly, the Kurds must wait for the central government in Baghdad to share it.

But, as you will see from the article, there was an attempt to amend the law. And:

On June 16, the Senate voted 54-45 against the measure. The majority of Democrats, following the White House's lead, voted against the amendment.

And, of course, there is another significant player, with excellent connections to the White House:

Turkey, a NATO member and essential player in the ISIS fight, is also a concern, the aide added. Though Turkey has been friendlier with the Iraqi Kurds than with other Kurds across the region, it remains nervous that increased Kurdish power could inspire its own Kurdish minority to seek greater autonomy.

Yes indeed.

So what can one say about this abomination of international politics? Probably what this article says so clearly:

Free world has no leader in White House

Too bad.