It has been quite amusing to watch right-wing activists label President Obama a pawn of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, even though the governments of the two countries are longtime regional rivals, while also being a sympathizer (or follower) of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is despised by the Saudis and the Iranian-aligned Assad regime of Syria.

So how could Obama somehow be a pawn of all of these groups despite their very different interests, rivalries, and goals?

Let right-wing activist Clare Lopez explain — or at least try to explain — in a WorldNetDaily interview yesterday about how it all makes sense:

But why, WND asked, would Obama have threatened to bomb Assad last summer for his alleged use of chemical weapons, if he wanted to see Iran’s influence spread? That brought her to what she described as the biggest problem in the big picture, the influence of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood over the U.S. government. Lopez said Obama only threatened Assad, “because of the infiltration of his government by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are clamoring in his ear at the National Security Council, ‘Do something, do something.’” They wanted help for their Muslim Brotherhood brothers. But the Middle East and Syria is designated for Iran, so what’s Obama gonna do? He decided on half and half. Give the Muslim Brotherhood Sunnis a little bit of aid, but not enough to overturn Assad. Make the Brotherhood happy. But don’t overturn Assad. And, at the same time, back and support Iran to be the hegemon. Lopez said, in addition to infiltrating the administration, the Brotherhood has established influence over many branches of the federal government over the last few decades.

So there you have it: Obama wants to overthrow the Assad regime to please his anti-Assad puppet masters, but doesn’t want to try too hard in order to please Iran.

Everybody wins, or in this case, loses.