Obama will bomb Syria because Iran

[mota bhai 2,675]

This weekend’s quick, unattributed confirmation from the White House that Syrian forces likely used chemical weapons last week strongly suggests that U.S. President Barack Obama is moving quickly on reaching a decision about how to respond — no more slowwalking a judgment about whether Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad did or didn’t do the deed.

...

A response is a must: So far, Obama has been the Avoider-in-Chief when it comes to Syria. But the latest use of chemicals by Assad — perhaps their most extensive deployment since Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Kurds in Halabja – mandates a response, no matter how ineffective or risky it proves to be.

...

Entering what could be a decisive period of diplomacy with Iran on the nuclear issue, the United States will need to create the perception that it is prepared to use force if diplomacy fails, and to enforce red lines that have already turned pink in the case of Syria.

...

Assuming Obama keeps his use of force in Syria within strict limits, it’s the Iran nuclear issue that represents the real gamechanger, not Syria. Better to keep his options open, then, and not get bogged down in Syria or wrestle with the Russians over Assad’s fate.

...

Obama will act militarily in Syria, but deliberately. Whatever its misgivings, the U.S. military will execute whatever attack the president authorizes – maybe missile strikes against units that have used chemical weapons, or against other military infrastructure. And if he explains his reasoning clearly and transparently, he’ll have Congress and the public behind him.

The president’s real problem isn’t stateside; it’s the challenge that all great powers face in dealing with small tribes in unfamiliar neighborhoods who feel their existence is on the line. They may well react in unpredicable ways.

Assad’s options aren’t great. He couldn’t respond to Israeli strikes. What can he do against the mighty United States? Hezbollah might use rockets against Israel. But all of this is just going to make Assad’s situation more precarious. And he’d be foolish to tempt fate by using chemical weapons quickly again. But sooner or later, Assad will again defy the United States and challenge Obama to do something about it. And then the president, having broken the ceiling of using military force directly, will be under pressure to do so again. Only this time, he may need to act more decisively.

Aaron David Miller is vice president for new initiatives and a distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. His forthcoming book is titled Can America Have Another Great President?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-will-bomb-syria-95902.html

[GandD 5,966]

Thank God for these posts. Keep them coming.

FTR, I say we do nothing. The middle easterners will kill each other for a while. Won't that be nice for us?

[Darnell 8,479]

We gots some treaty with Syria? is it in effect? No? meh.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Here are my two red cents. This is going down. There is nothing little about the US response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria. Prepare for war in the worst case scenario. The US and Israel have been in planning for the fall out for a strike on Syria because they know after two years that what's happening in Syria has turned into essentially a proxy war for control of the region. Israel also may have warned the US that they plan to strike Iran and they're not waiting any longer for them to develop the nuclear weapon when they're this close. Israel has been saying this for a long time in response to Iran's ambitions to wipe it off the face of the earth and the opportunity has presented itself to act.

I also think that is the real reason why 21 Embassies in the region shut down recently. It was a trial run for the encase of an emergency situation such as a major war breaks out. A preemptive strike from Israel on Iran may cause attacks on the western embassies in the region. Even a defensive strike response from Israel on Iran will still cause people in Arab countries to attack embassies in the region. The embassies shutting down in the region gives a visual map to our allies to follow our lead if need be.

Already in the news the war rhetoric is gearing up of how it will play out:

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

Strike on Syria Would Cause One on Israel, Iran Declares

Israel vows "fierce" response to potential Syrian attack

Israel will respond with force to any attempts by Syria and its backers to attack the Jewish state in the wake of a possible U.S. strike against the Syrian government

And it just keeps escalating... U.S., Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts

Edited August 28, 2013 by ॐ

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is going down.

word

[GandD 5,966]

If there is involvement, I doubt more than Libya. Sorry, not going to be an all out war. Deserts are easy.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Iran could be bluffing but I don't think Israel is. Assad is already in Iran.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Obama the Nobel peace prize winner. It would be like Richard Simmons gaining 200 lbs

[Crashed~N2~Me 970]

Surely the revelationists are packing suitcases, changing their underwear every couple hours & maybe even doing some superman stretches preparing for the rapture?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Crashed~N2~Me

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Thinking more about it. Syria is not going to be like Libya either. It's one of the main reasons the West has stayed out of it for so long because in comparison it would be more like Iraq.

The population of Libya is around 7 million and they mainly reside along the coast line with the rest of the country being desert. The population of Syria is close to 23 million which makes it just a little smaller than Iraq. Also the demographics of Syria are 90% Sunni Muslims with 10% Alawites which are the Shia ruling class. There is also a Kurdish population on their northern border. Internally the beliefs vary due to the tribes as more if not more than Iraq. Striking Syria would be like cracking a crystal into a million pieces with the sectarianism there. It's a hornet's nest.

It's not all desert either. There is a large agricultural area that spans into Iraq. The Syrian military is also more sophisticated than either Libya or Iraq. They have 400,000 troops and modern military equipment supplied from Russia, North Korea. Part of the tension between Russia and the US right now are the missiles being supplied to Iran via Syria that can reach Israel.

The Western powers aren't calling for a regime change either as in the case of what happened in Libya. The West is calling for a limited and targeted attack on the Syrian chemical weapons storage. I think we all know though that once it starts it has the potential to snowball because of the fallout from Syrian allies who analysts in today's news are saying the Syrian allies aren't bluffing either.

Also to complicate the situation the Assad regime isn't our enemy per say and neither are the Russians. This is partly about Iran and I wonder if Russia realizes it's not them but rather Iran that the West is most concerned about.

Also the Syrian situations has changed in the demographics of the opposition people who started the Arab Spring uprising to whose fighting in a civil war now. It was once civilians protesting in Syria but once it turned into a battle it became civilians turned militants who were joined by experienced foreign jihadi fighters and it's turned into a very different situation. These are the same jihadi's that we're seeing in Egypt's Sinai peninsula and who have fought in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere crossing borders at will.

They seek out and enter into any domestic turmoil happening in predominately Muslim societies to further destabilizes the situation and gain control by force. Their ambition is to rule others by Sharia law and to have a large caliphate which in turn aligns with AQ beliefs. If you've ever read what the AQ demands are then you'd know what their beliefs are and what they're fighting for and there is no common ground for compromise. It's there way or else. In Syria the rebels with the jihadi's want to take control and change the flag of Syrian to green, white and red and replace the red stars with two black curved swords which has become the symbol of jihadi's on their all black flags. This is a mixture of civilians turned fighters who have become radicalized, which are identified as Syrian Sunni radicals, and in turn is mixed with the guys we've been fighting the war on terror with for over a decade that are made up of Islamic radicals.

Meanwhile in nearly every situation in these countries in turmoil there is a civilian population stuck in the middle of all this fighting for control of the country and thus the region at large. Syria has larger implications just as Egypt does when you start seeing the connection of what's really happening and has been going on for decades. It all gets back to the root of where it started. Some have suggested that the borders should be redone and one country, such as Libya, in the region should say that they can be the place were all the non-radicals can go to live in their peaceful free democratic society. Of course that's a pipe dream too because then you've got to kick out the radicals in Libya to make it free and clear for the rest of the people that want to live in a modern society away from the conflict.

[Jacque67 7,328]

For an ophthalmologist , he seems rather short sighted.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I keep asking myself what does Syria have that the US or Western powers want. The reports the US and UK released today say they're justified for humanitarian intervention and chemical weapons use is against international law. Well to that I say for 2.5 years we've sat back and watched as 100,000 Syrians have been killed by their government and nearly a million have been made refugees in neighboring countries. As for chemical weapons Obama already drew that red line and Assad crossed it in a smaller attack and we did nothing but investigate and verify it was the Assad regime that did it. Now an estimate 1300 civilians are killed in a chemical weapons attack and suddenly they're ready to move without waiting for solid verification of who did it while saying it was the Assad regime who is responsible yet Assad himself is allowing UN inspectors open access to investigate the situation. That is not the behavior of the guilty. Both Assad and the rebels point the fingers at each other for it.

Then there are the pictures of the chemical attack victims bodies that has me questioning who lined them up in mass and transmitted those babies bodies around the world? What is the reason for showing people this? I hate to say it but it smacks of propaganda to me and I'm inclined to think that this was a desperate and sinister attempt by AQ and rebels to drag Western powers into the war and fight in their favor. However, Israeli intelligence is the one providing the evidence to the US that it was the Assad regime that had this particular chemical weapons storage and that it was their missiles that deployed this attack in Damascus. That they were there only ones that could do this and that is why the US is confident to say it was Assad without the results of the UN investigation being submitted.

So knowing what we know about the various allies backing this on either side I think I've have their game plan now. I'm led to believe that the real point of all this is to get the US to strike Syria in order to provoke Iran to strike Israel in order to give Israel a legitimate reason to finally go forward with their strike on Iran's nuclear facilities that they've been wanting to do forever. Everyone is looking at Syria while this is all about Iran. The US and it's allies that are willing to join it in this operation will take care of Syria and the Russian ships in the region if they react while Israel takes care of their business with Iran if it reacts. I also suspect they've been planning this together for for awhile because of the embassy closures recently in the region. It's all opportunistic under the guise of humanitarian. I think China will stay out of it besides vetoing any planned action at the UN security councils meeting along with a veto from Russia.

Edited August 29, 2013 by ॐ

[Jacque67 7,328]

I keep asking myself what does Syria have that the US or Western powers want. The reports the US and UK released today say they're justified for humanitarian intervention and chemical weapons use is against international law. Well to that I say for 2.5 years we've sat back and watched as 100,000 Syrians have been killed by their government and nearly a million have been made refugees in neighboring countries. As for chemical weapons Obama already drew that red line and Assad crossed it in a smaller attack and we did nothing but investigate and verify it was the Assad regime that did it. Now an estimate 1300 civilians are killed in a chemical weapons attack and suddenly they're ready to move without waiting for solid verification of who did it while saying it was the Assad regime who is responsible yet Assad himself is allowing UN inspectors open access to investigate the situation. That is not the behavior of the guilty. Both Assad and the rebels point the fingers at each other for it.

Then there are the pictures of the chemical attack victims bodies that has me questioning who lined them up in mass and transmitted those babies bodies around the world? What is the reason for showing people this? I hate to say it but it smacks of propaganda to me and I'm inclined to think that this was a desperate and sinister attempt by AQ and rebels to drag Western powers into the war and fight in their favor. However, Israeli intelligence is the one providing the evidence to the US that it was the Assad regime that had this particular chemical weapons storage and that it was their missiles that deployed this attack in Damascus. That they were there only ones that could do this and that is why the US is confident to say it was Assad without the results of the UN investigation being submitted.

So knowing what we know about the various allies backing this on either side I think I've have their game plan now. I'm led to believe that the real point of all this is to get the US to strike Syria in order to provoke Iran to strike Israel in order to give Israel a legitimate reason to finally go forward with their strike on Iran's nuclear facilities that they've been wanting to do forever. Everyone is looking at Syria while this is all about Iran. The US and it's allies that are willing to join it in this operation will take care of Syria and the Russian ships in the region if they react while Israel takes care of their business with Iran if it reacts. I also suspect they've been planning this together for for awhile because of the embassy closures recently in the region. It's all opportunistic under the guise of humanitarian. I think China will stay out of it besides vetoing any planned action at the UN security councils meeting along with a veto from Russia.

I agree with your analysis

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

It's all in the blueprints (both the original and in the version that was imported into the US):

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[Karee 4,191]

What's the difference if civilians are killed by bombs or chemical weapons? They're still dead. Seems like the Syrian govt. has been bombing their own civilians for a couple years now, yet when these chemical weapons are used it's time for an intervention.