ΗΠΑ
, Λιβύη
, Μέση Ανατολή
, Συρία
1 Μαΐου 2015
The Day After Damascus Falls
Jabhat al-Nusra fighters in Yarmouk refugee camp on southern outskirts of Syrian capital, Damascus. (photo: AFP/Archive)By Robert Parry, Consortium News (USA)
The Saudi-Israeli alliance has gone on the offensive,
ramping up a “regime change” war in Syria and, in effect, promoting a
military victory for Al-Qaeda or its spinoff, the Islamic State. But the
consequences of that victory could toll the final bell for the American
Republic, writes Robert Parry.
If
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad meets the same fate as Libya’s Muammar
Gaddafi or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, much of Official Washington would
rush out to some chic watering hole to celebrate – one more “bad guy”
down, one more “regime change” notch on the belt. But the day after
Damascus falls could mark the beginning of the end for the American
Republic.
As Syria would descend into even bloodier chaos –
with an Al-Qaeda affiliate or its more violent spin-off, the Islamic
State, the only real powers left – the first instinct of American
politicians and pundits would be to cast blame, most likely at President
Barack Obama for not having intervened more aggressively earlier.
A favorite myth of Official Washington is that
Syrian “moderates” would have prevailed if only Obama had bombed the
Syrian military and provided sophisticated weapons to the rebels.
Syrian “moderates” would have prevailed if only Obama had bombed the
Syrian military and provided sophisticated weapons to the rebels.
Though no such “moderate” rebel movement ever existed –
at least not in any significant numbers – that reality is ignored by
all the “smart people” of Washington. It is simply too good a talking
point to surrender. The truth is that Obama was right when he told
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman in August 2014 that the
notion of a “moderate” rebel force that could achieve much was “always …
a fantasy.”
at least not in any significant numbers – that reality is ignored by
all the “smart people” of Washington. It is simply too good a talking
point to surrender. The truth is that Obama was right when he told
New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman in August 2014 that the
notion of a “moderate” rebel force that could achieve much was “always …
a fantasy.”
As much fun as the “who lost Syria” finger-pointing
would be, it would soon give way to the horror of what would likely
unfold in Syria with either Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front or the spin-off
Islamic State in charge – or possibly a coalition of the two with
Al-Qaeda using its new base to plot terror attacks on the West while the
Islamic State engaged in its favorite pastime, those YouTube
decapitations of infidels – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, even some
descendants of the survivors from Turkey’s Armenian genocide a century
ago who fled to Syria for safety.
would be, it would soon give way to the horror of what would likely
unfold in Syria with either Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front or the spin-off
Islamic State in charge – or possibly a coalition of the two with
Al-Qaeda using its new base to plot terror attacks on the West while the
Islamic State engaged in its favorite pastime, those YouTube
decapitations of infidels – Alawites, Shiites, Christians, even some
descendants of the survivors from Turkey’s Armenian genocide a century
ago who fled to Syria for safety.
Such a spectacle would be hard for the world to watch
and there would be demands on President Obama or his successor to “do
something.” But realistic options would be few, with a shattered and
scattered Syrian army no longer a viable force capable of driving the
terrorists from power.
and there would be demands on President Obama or his successor to “do
something.” But realistic options would be few, with a shattered and
scattered Syrian army no longer a viable force capable of driving the
terrorists from power.
The remaining option would be to send in the American
military, perhaps with some European allies, to try to dislodge Al-Qaeda
and/or the Islamic State. But the prospects for success would be slim.
The goal of conquering Syria – and possibly re-conquering much of Iraq
as well – would be costly, bloody and almost certainly futile.
military, perhaps with some European allies, to try to dislodge Al-Qaeda
and/or the Islamic State. But the prospects for success would be slim.
The goal of conquering Syria – and possibly re-conquering much of Iraq
as well – would be costly, bloody and almost certainly futile.
The further diversion of resources and manpower from
America’s domestic needs also would fuel the growing social discontent
in major U.S. cities, like what is now playing out in Baltimore where
disaffected African-American communities are rising up in anger against
poverty and the police brutality that goes with it. A new war in the
Middle East would accelerate America’s descent into bankruptcy and a
dystopian police state.
America’s domestic needs also would fuel the growing social discontent
in major U.S. cities, like what is now playing out in Baltimore where
disaffected African-American communities are rising up in anger against
poverty and the police brutality that goes with it. A new war in the
Middle East would accelerate America’s descent into bankruptcy and a
dystopian police state.
The last embers of the American Republic would fade.
In its place would be endless war and a single-minded devotion to
security. The National Security Agency already has in place the
surveillance capabilities to ensure that any civil resistance could be
thwarted.
In its place would be endless war and a single-minded devotion to
security. The National Security Agency already has in place the
surveillance capabilities to ensure that any civil resistance could be
thwarted.
Can This Fate Be Avoided?
But is there a way to avoid this grim fate? Is there a
way to wind this scenario back to some point before this outcome
becomes inevitable? Can the U.S. political/media system – as corrupt and
cavalier as it is – find a way to avert such a devastating foreign
policy disaster?
way to wind this scenario back to some point before this outcome
becomes inevitable? Can the U.S. political/media system – as corrupt and
cavalier as it is – find a way to avert such a devastating foreign
policy disaster?
To do so would require Official Washington to throw
off old dependencies, such as its obeisance to the Israel Lobby, and old
habits, such as its reliance on manipulative PR to control the American
people, patterns deeply engrained in the political process.
off old dependencies, such as its obeisance to the Israel Lobby, and old
habits, such as its reliance on manipulative PR to control the American
people, patterns deeply engrained in the political process.
At least since the Reagan administration – with its
“kick the Vietnam Syndrome” fascination via “public diplomacy” and
“perception management” – the tendency has been to designate some
foreign leader as the latest new villain and then whip up public
hysteria in support of a “regime change.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Victory of Perception Management.”]
“kick the Vietnam Syndrome” fascination via “public diplomacy” and
“perception management” – the tendency has been to designate some
foreign leader as the latest new villain and then whip up public
hysteria in support of a “regime change.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Victory of Perception Management.”]
In the 1980s, we saw the use of these “black hat/white
hat” exaggerations in Nicaragua, where President Ronald Reagan
deemed President Daniel Ortega “the dictator in designer glasses” as
Reagan’s propagandists depicted Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a
“totalitarian dungeon” and the CIA-trained Contra “freedom fighters” the
“moral equal of the Founding Fathers.”
hat” exaggerations in Nicaragua, where President Ronald Reagan
deemed President Daniel Ortega “the dictator in designer glasses” as
Reagan’s propagandists depicted Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a
“totalitarian dungeon” and the CIA-trained Contra “freedom fighters” the
“moral equal of the Founding Fathers.”
And, since Ortega and the Sandinistas were surely not
the embodiment of all virtue, it was hard to put Reagan’s
black-and-white depiction into the proper shades of gray. To make the
effort opened you to charges of being a “Sandinista apologist.”
Similarly, any negative news about the Contras – such as their
tendencies to rape, murder, torture and smuggle drugs – was sternly
suppressed with offending U.S. journalists targeted for career
retaliation.
the embodiment of all virtue, it was hard to put Reagan’s
black-and-white depiction into the proper shades of gray. To make the
effort opened you to charges of being a “Sandinista apologist.”
Similarly, any negative news about the Contras – such as their
tendencies to rape, murder, torture and smuggle drugs – was sternly
suppressed with offending U.S. journalists targeted for career
retaliation.
The pattern set by Reagan around Nicaragua and other
Central American conflicts became the blueprint for how to carry out
these post-Vietnam War propaganda operations. Afterwards came Panama’s
“madman” Manuel Noriega in 1989 and Iraq’s “worse than Hitler” Saddam
Hussein in 1990-91. Each American war was given its own villainous lead
actor.
Central American conflicts became the blueprint for how to carry out
these post-Vietnam War propaganda operations. Afterwards came Panama’s
“madman” Manuel Noriega in 1989 and Iraq’s “worse than Hitler” Saddam
Hussein in 1990-91. Each American war was given its own villainous lead
actor.
In 2002-03, Hussein was brought back to reprise his
“worse-than-Hitler” role in a post-9/11 sequel. His new evil-doing
involved sharing nuclear weapons and other WMD with Al-Qaeda so the
terror group could inflict even worse havoc on the innocent United
States. Anyone who questioned Official Washington’s WMD “group think”
was dismissed as a “Saddam apologist.”
“worse-than-Hitler” role in a post-9/11 sequel. His new evil-doing
involved sharing nuclear weapons and other WMD with Al-Qaeda so the
terror group could inflict even worse havoc on the innocent United
States. Anyone who questioned Official Washington’s WMD “group think”
was dismissed as a “Saddam apologist.”
Amid this enforced consensus, there was great joy when
the U.S.-led invasion overthrew Hussein’s government and captured him.
“We got him,” U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer exulted when Hussein was pulled
from a “spider hole” and was soon heading to the gallows.
the U.S.-led invasion overthrew Hussein’s government and captured him.
“We got him,” U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer exulted when Hussein was pulled
from a “spider hole” and was soon heading to the gallows.
However, some of the triumphal excitement wore off
when the U.S. occupation forces failed to discover the promised caches
of WMD. Hussein’s ouster also didn’t produce the sunny new day that
America’s neocons had promised for Iraq and the Middle East. Instead,
Al-Qaeda, which had not existed under Hussein’s secular regime, found
fertile soil to plant its “Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a radical Sunni movement
which pioneered a particularly graphic form of terrorist violence.
when the U.S. occupation forces failed to discover the promised caches
of WMD. Hussein’s ouster also didn’t produce the sunny new day that
America’s neocons had promised for Iraq and the Middle East. Instead,
Al-Qaeda, which had not existed under Hussein’s secular regime, found
fertile soil to plant its “Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” a radical Sunni movement
which pioneered a particularly graphic form of terrorist violence.
That brutality, often directed at Shiites, was met
with brutality in kind from Iraq’s new Shiite leadership, touching off a
sectarian civil war. Meanwhile, the war against the U.S. occupation
turned into a messy struggle between America’s high-tech military and
Iraq’s low-tech resistance.
with brutality in kind from Iraq’s new Shiite leadership, touching off a
sectarian civil war. Meanwhile, the war against the U.S. occupation
turned into a messy struggle between America’s high-tech military and
Iraq’s low-tech resistance.
Lessons Unlearned
What Americans should have learned from Iraq was that
just because the neocons and their liberal-interventionist friends
identify a foreign “bad guy” – and then exaggerate his faults – doesn’t
mean that his violent removal is the best idea. It might actually lead
to something worse. There is wisdom in the doctor’s oath, “first, do no
harm,” and there’s truth in the old warning that before you tear down a
wall, you should ask why someone built it in the first place.
just because the neocons and their liberal-interventionist friends
identify a foreign “bad guy” – and then exaggerate his faults – doesn’t
mean that his violent removal is the best idea. It might actually lead
to something worse. There is wisdom in the doctor’s oath, “first, do no
harm,” and there’s truth in the old warning that before you tear down a
wall, you should ask why someone built it in the first place.
However, in the propaganda world of Official
Washington, a different lesson was learned: that it is easy to create
designated villains and no one of importance will dare challenge the
wisdom of removing that villain through another “regime change.”
Washington, a different lesson was learned: that it is easy to create
designated villains and no one of importance will dare challenge the
wisdom of removing that villain through another “regime change.”
Instead of the neocons and their liberal helpers being
held accountable and removed from the corridors of power, they
entrenched themselves more deeply inside the U.S. government, mainstream
media and big-name think tanks. They also found new allies among the
self-righteous “human rights” community espousing the theory of
“responsibility to protect” or “R2P.”
held accountable and removed from the corridors of power, they
entrenched themselves more deeply inside the U.S. government, mainstream
media and big-name think tanks. They also found new allies among the
self-righteous “human rights” community espousing the theory of
“responsibility to protect” or “R2P.”
Despite President Obama’s election – partly driven by
the American people’s revulsion over the neocon excesses during
President George W. Bush’s administration – there was no real purge of
the neocons and their accomplices. Indeed, Obama kept in place Bush’s
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the neocons’ beloved Gen. David
Petraeus while installing neocon-lite Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. Around Obama at the White House were prominent R2Pers such as
Samantha Power.
the American people’s revulsion over the neocon excesses during
President George W. Bush’s administration – there was no real purge of
the neocons and their accomplices. Indeed, Obama kept in place Bush’s
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the neocons’ beloved Gen. David
Petraeus while installing neocon-lite Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton. Around Obama at the White House were prominent R2Pers such as
Samantha Power.
So, although Obama may have personally favored a more
realist-driven foreign policy that would deal with the world as it is,
not as one might dream it to be, he never took control of his own
administration, passively accepting the rise of a new generation of
interventionists who continued depicting designated foreign villains as
evil and rejecting any discouraging word that “regime change” might
actually unleash even worse evil.
realist-driven foreign policy that would deal with the world as it is,
not as one might dream it to be, he never took control of his own
administration, passively accepting the rise of a new generation of
interventionists who continued depicting designated foreign villains as
evil and rejecting any discouraging word that “regime change” might
actually unleash even worse evil.
In 2011, the R2Pers, as the neocons’ junior partners,
largely initiated the U.S.-orchestrated “regime change” in Libya, which
starred Muammar Gaddafi in a returning role as “the world’s most
dangerous man.” All the old terror charges against him were resurrected,
including some like the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in
1988 that he very likely didn’t do. But, again, no one wanted to
quibble because that would make you a “Gaddafi apologist.”
largely initiated the U.S.-orchestrated “regime change” in Libya, which
starred Muammar Gaddafi in a returning role as “the world’s most
dangerous man.” All the old terror charges against him were resurrected,
including some like the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in
1988 that he very likely didn’t do. But, again, no one wanted to
quibble because that would make you a “Gaddafi apologist.”
So, to the gleeful delight of Secretary of State
Clinton, Gaddafi was overthrown, captured, beaten, sodomized with a
knife, and then murdered. Clinton made no effort to conceal her glee.
“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked at the news of his murder (although it was not clear that she knew all the grisly details at the time).
Clinton, Gaddafi was overthrown, captured, beaten, sodomized with a
knife, and then murdered. Clinton made no effort to conceal her glee.
“We came, we saw, he died,” she joked at the news of his murder (although it was not clear that she knew all the grisly details at the time).
But Gaddafi’s demise did not bring Nirvana to Libya.
Indeed, Gaddafi’s warning about the need to attack Islamic terrorists
operating in eastern Libya – his military offensive that led to the R2P
demand that Obama intervene militarily to stop Gaddafi – proved to be
prophetic.
Indeed, Gaddafi’s warning about the need to attack Islamic terrorists
operating in eastern Libya – his military offensive that led to the R2P
demand that Obama intervene militarily to stop Gaddafi – proved to be
prophetic.
Extremists grabbed control of much of Libya. They
overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador and
three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. A civil war has now spread
anarchy and mayhem across Libya and nearby countries.
overran the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador and
three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. A civil war has now spread
anarchy and mayhem across Libya and nearby countries.
Libya also now has its own branch of the Islamic
State, which videotaped its beheadings of Coptic Christians along a
beach on the Mediterranean Sea, a sickening sign of what could be
expected after a possible Syrian “regime change” next. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy.”]
State, which videotaped its beheadings of Coptic Christians along a
beach on the Mediterranean Sea, a sickening sign of what could be
expected after a possible Syrian “regime change” next. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “The US Hand in Libya’s Tragedy.”]
On to Ukraine
While U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power and other R2Pers took the lead in provoking the Libyan fiasco,
neocon holdovers demonstrated their own “regime change” skills by
turning a pedestrian political dispute in Ukraine – about how fast to
build new economic ties to Europe while maintaining old ones with Russia
– into not only a civil war in Ukraine but a revival of the Cold War
between the United States and Russia.
Power and other R2Pers took the lead in provoking the Libyan fiasco,
neocon holdovers demonstrated their own “regime change” skills by
turning a pedestrian political dispute in Ukraine – about how fast to
build new economic ties to Europe while maintaining old ones with Russia
– into not only a civil war in Ukraine but a revival of the Cold War
between the United States and Russia.
In the Ukraine case, the neocons made elected
President Viktor Yanukovych wear the black hat with Russian President
Vladimir Putin fitted for even a bigger black hat. So, as Yanukovych and
Putin were scripted as the new “bad guys,” the anti-Yanukovych
protesters and rioters at the Maidan square were made into the
white-hatted “good guys.”
President Viktor Yanukovych wear the black hat with Russian President
Vladimir Putin fitted for even a bigger black hat. So, as Yanukovych and
Putin were scripted as the new “bad guys,” the anti-Yanukovych
protesters and rioters at the Maidan square were made into the
white-hatted “good guys.”
Much as with the Sandinistas and the Contras in the
1980s, this dichotomy required assigning all evil to Yanukovych and
Putin while absolving the Maidan crowd of all sins, including the key
role played by neo-Nazi militias in both the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and the
subsequent civil war. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Seeing No Neo-Nazi Militias in Ukraine.”]
1980s, this dichotomy required assigning all evil to Yanukovych and
Putin while absolving the Maidan crowd of all sins, including the key
role played by neo-Nazi militias in both the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and the
subsequent civil war. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Seeing No Neo-Nazi Militias in Ukraine.”]
As the Ukraine crisis has played out, Official
Washington and the mainstream U.S. news media have consistently placed
all blame for the violence on Yanukovych – lodging the dubious charge
that he had snipers kill both police and protesters on Feb. 20, 2014 –
or on Putin – fingering him for the still-unsolved case of the Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down on July 17, 2014.
Washington and the mainstream U.S. news media have consistently placed
all blame for the violence on Yanukovych – lodging the dubious charge
that he had snipers kill both police and protesters on Feb. 20, 2014 –
or on Putin – fingering him for the still-unsolved case of the Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 shoot-down on July 17, 2014.
Evidence that suggests that right-wing Ukrainian
elements were responsible for those pivotal events is sloughed off with
anyone daring to dispute the conventional wisdom deemed a “Putin
apologist.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How Ukraine Commemorates the Holocaust.”]
elements were responsible for those pivotal events is sloughed off with
anyone daring to dispute the conventional wisdom deemed a “Putin
apologist.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “How Ukraine Commemorates the Holocaust.”]
Meanwhile, starting in 2011, the neocons and the
R2Pers were both active in pushing for the overthrow of Syria’s
President Assad, who – like all the other “bad guys” – has been made
into a one-dimensional villain brutalizing innocent “moderates” who
stand for all that is good and right in the world.
R2Pers were both active in pushing for the overthrow of Syria’s
President Assad, who – like all the other “bad guys” – has been made
into a one-dimensional villain brutalizing innocent “moderates” who
stand for all that is good and right in the world.
The fact that the anti-Assad opposition has always
included Sunni extremists and terrorists drawing support from Saudi
Arabia and other authoritarian Sunni Persian Gulf states is another
inconvenient truth that usually gets kept out of the mainstream
narrative.
included Sunni extremists and terrorists drawing support from Saudi
Arabia and other authoritarian Sunni Persian Gulf states is another
inconvenient truth that usually gets kept out of the mainstream
narrative.
Though it’s surely true that both sides in the Syrian
civil war have engaged in atrocities, the neocon-R2P storyline – for
much of the civil war – was to consistently blame Assad and to
conveniently absolve the rebels. Thus, on Aug. 21, 2013, when a
mysterious sarin gas attack killed several hundred people in a Damascus
suburb, the rush to judgment blamed Assad’s forces, despite logic and
evidence that it was more likely a provocation by rebel extremists. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “A Fact-Resistant ‘Group Think’ on Syria.”]
civil war have engaged in atrocities, the neocon-R2P storyline – for
much of the civil war – was to consistently blame Assad and to
conveniently absolve the rebels. Thus, on Aug. 21, 2013, when a
mysterious sarin gas attack killed several hundred people in a Damascus
suburb, the rush to judgment blamed Assad’s forces, despite logic and
evidence that it was more likely a provocation by rebel extremists. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “A Fact-Resistant ‘Group Think’ on Syria.”]
Though it was less clear in August 2013, it soon
became obvious that the most effective rebel fighters were Al-Qaeda’s
Nusra Front and the Islamic State, which had evolved from the
hyper-violent “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” into the “Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria” before adopting the name, “Islamic State.” By September 2013,
many of the U.S.-armed and CIA-trained fighters of the Free Syrian Army
had thrown in their lot with either Nusra Front or Islamic State. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Syrian Rebels Embrace Al-Qaeda.”]
became obvious that the most effective rebel fighters were Al-Qaeda’s
Nusra Front and the Islamic State, which had evolved from the
hyper-violent “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” into the “Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria” before adopting the name, “Islamic State.” By September 2013,
many of the U.S.-armed and CIA-trained fighters of the Free Syrian Army
had thrown in their lot with either Nusra Front or Islamic State. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Syrian Rebels Embrace Al-Qaeda.”]
No Self-Criticism
But the opinion leaders of Official Washington are not
exactly self-critical when they misread a foreign crisis. To explain
why the beloved Syrian “moderates” joined forces with Al-Qaeda or the
Islamic State, the neocons and the R2Pers blamed Obama for not
intervening militarily earlier to achieve “regime change” against Assad.
exactly self-critical when they misread a foreign crisis. To explain
why the beloved Syrian “moderates” joined forces with Al-Qaeda or the
Islamic State, the neocons and the R2Pers blamed Obama for not
intervening militarily earlier to achieve “regime change” against Assad.
In other words, no lessons were learned from the
experiences in Iraq and Libya – that “regime change” is a dangerous
strategy that fails to take into account the complexities of the
countries where the United States decides to overthrow governments.
experiences in Iraq and Libya – that “regime change” is a dangerous
strategy that fails to take into account the complexities of the
countries where the United States decides to overthrow governments.
The same unlearned lesson should have applied to
Ukraine, a strategically important nation to Russia and one in which
much of the population is ethnic Russian. But there neocon Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland brushed aside
the possibility of a costly showdown with Russia – a conflict that could
potentially evolve into a nuclear conflagration – in order to pursue
the “regime change” model.
Ukraine, a strategically important nation to Russia and one in which
much of the population is ethnic Russian. But there neocon Assistant
Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland brushed aside
the possibility of a costly showdown with Russia – a conflict that could
potentially evolve into a nuclear conflagration – in order to pursue
the “regime change” model.
While Ukraine today remains engulfed in chaos – the
same as “regime change” experiments Iraq and Libya – the most
potentially catastrophic “regime change” could come in Syria. The
neocons and the R2Pers – as well as the mainstream U.S. media – remain
set on ousting Assad, a goal also shared by Israel, Saudi Arabia and
other hard-line Sunni states.
same as “regime change” experiments Iraq and Libya – the most
potentially catastrophic “regime change” could come in Syria. The
neocons and the R2Pers – as well as the mainstream U.S. media – remain
set on ousting Assad, a goal also shared by Israel, Saudi Arabia and
other hard-line Sunni states.
For his part, President Obama seems incapable of
making the tough decisions that would avert a Syrian victory by Al-Qaeda
and the Islamic State. That’s because to help salvage the Assad regime –
as the preferable alternative to transforming Syria into the bedlam of
“terror central” – would require cooperating with Iran and Russia,
Assad’s two most important backers.
making the tough decisions that would avert a Syrian victory by Al-Qaeda
and the Islamic State. That’s because to help salvage the Assad regime –
as the preferable alternative to transforming Syria into the bedlam of
“terror central” – would require cooperating with Iran and Russia,
Assad’s two most important backers.
That, in turn, would infuriate the neocons, the R2Pers
and the mainstream media. Obama would face a rebellion across Official
Washington, where the debating points regarding “who lost Syria” are
more valuable than taking realistic actions to protect vital American
interests.
and the mainstream media. Obama would face a rebellion across Official
Washington, where the debating points regarding “who lost Syria” are
more valuable than taking realistic actions to protect vital American
interests.
Obama would also have to face down both Saudi Arabia
and Israel, something he does not seem capable of doing, especially as
he tries to salvage an international agreement to restrict Iran’s
nuclear program to peaceful purposes only – when Saudi Arabia and Israel
want to enlist the U.S. military in another “regime change” war in
Iran.
and Israel, something he does not seem capable of doing, especially as
he tries to salvage an international agreement to restrict Iran’s
nuclear program to peaceful purposes only – when Saudi Arabia and Israel
want to enlist the U.S. military in another “regime change” war in
Iran.
Indeed, the recent decision by the Saudi-Israeli
alliance to go on the offensive against what it deems Iranian “proxies”
is possibly the major reason why the United States is incapable of
taking action to avert what may be an impending Al-Qaeda/Islamic State
victory in Syria. Between Saudi Arabia’s power over finance and energy
and Israel’s political and media clout, these “strange-bedfellow” allies
wield enormous influence over Official Washington. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?”]
alliance to go on the offensive against what it deems Iranian “proxies”
is possibly the major reason why the United States is incapable of
taking action to avert what may be an impending Al-Qaeda/Islamic State
victory in Syria. Between Saudi Arabia’s power over finance and energy
and Israel’s political and media clout, these “strange-bedfellow” allies
wield enormous influence over Official Washington. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Did Money Seal Israeli-Saudi Alliance?”]
This alliance is now entangling the United States in
ancient Sunni-Shiite rivalries dating back to the Seventh Century. Saudi
Arabia, Israel and their many U.S. backers are gluing black hats on
Shiite-ruled Iran and its allies while adjusting white hats on the Saudi
royals and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has
unleashed the potent Israel Lobby to get Official Washington in line.
ancient Sunni-Shiite rivalries dating back to the Seventh Century. Saudi
Arabia, Israel and their many U.S. backers are gluing black hats on
Shiite-ruled Iran and its allies while adjusting white hats on the Saudi
royals and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has
unleashed the potent Israel Lobby to get Official Washington in line.
Israel also has intensified its airstrikes inside
Syria, bombing targets associated with Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia which
is supporting the Assad regime. Israel rationalizes these attacks as
designed to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining sophisticated weaponry but
the practical effect is to weaken the forces battling Al-Qaeda’s Nusra
Front and the Islamic State.
Syria, bombing targets associated with Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia which
is supporting the Assad regime. Israel rationalizes these attacks as
designed to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining sophisticated weaponry but
the practical effect is to weaken the forces battling Al-Qaeda’s Nusra
Front and the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, along with Turkey and some
Persian Gulf states, has stepped up support for the Sunni Islamists
battling Assad’s army, thus explaining the recent surge of new recruits
and improved fighting capabilities of the rebels.
Persian Gulf states, has stepped up support for the Sunni Islamists
battling Assad’s army, thus explaining the recent surge of new recruits
and improved fighting capabilities of the rebels.
Yemen’s Suffering
In another front in this Sunni-Shiite regional war,
Saudi Arabia – deploying sophisticated American warplanes – continues to
pummel neighboring Yemen where Houthi rebels, belonging to a Shiite
offshoot, have gained control of the capital Sanaa and other major
cities.
Saudi Arabia – deploying sophisticated American warplanes – continues to
pummel neighboring Yemen where Houthi rebels, belonging to a Shiite
offshoot, have gained control of the capital Sanaa and other major
cities.
On Tuesday, Saudi jets bombed
Sanaa’s airport to prevent an Iranian humanitarian aid flight from
landing, but the destruction also made the runway unusable for other
supplies desperately needed by the Yemeni people. While the Saudis
prevented this aid from the air, the U.S. Navy has mounted what amounts
to a blockade at sea, turning back nine Iranian ships last weekend
because of unconfirmed suspicions that weapons might be hidden in the
food and medicine.
Sanaa’s airport to prevent an Iranian humanitarian aid flight from
landing, but the destruction also made the runway unusable for other
supplies desperately needed by the Yemeni people. While the Saudis
prevented this aid from the air, the U.S. Navy has mounted what amounts
to a blockade at sea, turning back nine Iranian ships last weekend
because of unconfirmed suspicions that weapons might be hidden in the
food and medicine.
The combination of these interdictions is creating a
humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the poorest nation in the Middle East. The
U.S. Navy, which likes to call itself “a global force for good,” has,
in effect, been drawn into a strategy of starving the Yemeni people into
submission as just more collateral damage in the Saudi war against
Iranian influence.
humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the poorest nation in the Middle East. The
U.S. Navy, which likes to call itself “a global force for good,” has,
in effect, been drawn into a strategy of starving the Yemeni people into
submission as just more collateral damage in the Saudi war against
Iranian influence.
Another consequence of the Saudi air campaign has been
to boost “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” which has exploited the
Saudi targeting of Houthi forces to seize more territory in Yemen’s
east.
to boost “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” which has exploited the
Saudi targeting of Houthi forces to seize more territory in Yemen’s
east.
Yet, as tragic as the Yemeni situation is becoming, the more consequential crisis is emerging in Syria, where some analysts are seeing signs
of a possible collapse of the Assad regime, a chief goal of the
Saudi-Israeli alliance. Senior Israelis have been saying since 2013 that
they would prefer a victory by Al-Qaeda over a victory by Assad.
of a possible collapse of the Assad regime, a chief goal of the
Saudi-Israeli alliance. Senior Israelis have been saying since 2013 that
they would prefer a victory by Al-Qaeda over a victory by Assad.
For instance, in September 2013, Israeli Ambassador to
the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Prime Minister
Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post in an interview:
“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends
from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the
keystone in that arc. … We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always
preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who
were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys”
were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Prime Minister
Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post in an interview:
“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends
from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the
keystone in that arc. … We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always
preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who
were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys”
were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren expanded on this thinking at an
Aspen Institute conference, extending Israel’s preference to include
even the hyper-brutal Islamic State. “From Israel’s perspective, if
there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil
prevail,” Oren said.
Aspen Institute conference, extending Israel’s preference to include
even the hyper-brutal Islamic State. “From Israel’s perspective, if
there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil
prevail,” Oren said.
During Netanyahu’s March 3, 2015 speech to a joint
session of the U.S. Congress, he also downplayed the danger from the
Islamic State – with its “butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube” –
compared to Iran, which he accused of “gobbling up the nations” of the
Middle East. However, Iran has not gobbled up any nations in the Middle
East. It has not invaded any country for centuries. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Inventing a Record of Iranian Aggression.”]
session of the U.S. Congress, he also downplayed the danger from the
Islamic State – with its “butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube” –
compared to Iran, which he accused of “gobbling up the nations” of the
Middle East. However, Iran has not gobbled up any nations in the Middle
East. It has not invaded any country for centuries. [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Inventing a Record of Iranian Aggression.”]
Yet, while the Saudi-Israeli alarums about Iran may
border on the hysterical, the alliance’s combined influence over
Official Washington cannot be overstated. Thus, as absurd and outrageous
as many of the claims are, they are not only taken seriously, they are
treated as gospel. Anyone who points to the reality immediately becomes
an “Iranian apologist.”
border on the hysterical, the alliance’s combined influence over
Official Washington cannot be overstated. Thus, as absurd and outrageous
as many of the claims are, they are not only taken seriously, they are
treated as gospel. Anyone who points to the reality immediately becomes
an “Iranian apologist.”
But the power of the Saudi-Israeli alliance is not
simply a political curiosity or an obstacle to sensible policies. As it
creates the conditions for an Al-Qaeda/Islamic State victory in Syria –
and the possible reintroduction of the U.S. military into the middle of
the Middle East – the Saudi-Israeli alliance has become an existential
threat to the survival of the American Republic.
simply a political curiosity or an obstacle to sensible policies. As it
creates the conditions for an Al-Qaeda/Islamic State victory in Syria –
and the possible reintroduction of the U.S. military into the middle of
the Middle East – the Saudi-Israeli alliance has become an existential
threat to the survival of the American Republic.
As the nation’s first presidents wisely recognized,
there are grave dangers to a republic when it entangles itself in
foreign conflicts. It’s almost always wiser to seek out realistic albeit
imperfect political solutions or at least to evaluate what the negative
ramifications of the military option might be before undertaking it.
there are grave dangers to a republic when it entangles itself in
foreign conflicts. It’s almost always wiser to seek out realistic albeit
imperfect political solutions or at least to evaluate what the negative
ramifications of the military option might be before undertaking it.
Otherwise, as the early presidents realized, if the country plunges into
one costly conflict after another, it becomes a martial state, not a
democratic republic.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/29913-focus-the-day-after-damascus-falls 
Ακολουθήστε το infognomonpolitics.gr στο Google News και μάθετε πρώτοι όλες τις ειδήσεις που αφορούν τα εθνικά θέματα, τις διεθνείς σχέσεις, την εξωτερική πολιτική, τα ελληνοτουρκικά και την εθνική άμυνα.
Ακολουθήστε το infognomonpolitics.gr στο Facebook
Ακολουθήστε τον Σάββα Καλεντερίδη στο Facebook
Ακολουθήστε τον Σάββα Καλεντερίδη στο Twitter
Εγγραφείτε στο κανάλι του infognomonpolitics.gr στο Youtube