On Russia Today’s Crosstalk this week, see here, Flynt emphasized that “a negotiated political settlement remains the only way out of the mess” in Syria. Noting that Former Algerian Foreign Minister Lakhdar Brahimi, “in his role as the U.N. and Arab League envoy, is trying to get traction with a process, trying to use a ceasefire for [the upcoming Muslim holiday] Eid al-Adha to jumpstart that,” Flynt reviews the regional and international state of play:
“Iran, for its part, has supported the plan; the Syrian government has expressed its willingness to cooperate. And, in something of an important shift in previous policy, Turkey is now saying it would support this initiative. It really remains to be seen whether other players—not just players in the Syrian opposition but other regional players—whether Gulf Arab states would be prepared to support this and use their influence with opposition groups. Will the United States be prepared to support this? This would require a significant change in direction for the United States, for the Gulf Arab states to support this kind of initiative, but it really is the only way out.”
Flynt also relates the diplomatic state of play to the disposition of public opinion in Syria:
“I think that there is a genuine popular base for the opposition in Syria, there are indigenous factors that contribute to this conflict, certainly. But I also think that the Syrian government, the Assad government, retains the support of probably a narrow majority of the Syrian population…at least half of the Syrian population still supports the government. That’s why I say I don’t think there is a military solution to this. I am not that confident that the Assad government can really win militarily, particularly as long as the opposition is supported by outside players. But I also don’t think that there’s a way for the opposition to win. [So] I come back to my basic point—that the only way out of this is a negotiated political process.
The problem so far has been that there are players—the United States, the Gulf Arabs, the Turks—that have insisted up to this point that a political process have not just preconditions but what you might call “pre-results”: that Assad’s departure had to be stipulated at the get-go. And for the United States, there’s this further concern that they’ve never wanted to have Iran involved in a regional process or a contact group on Syria. That’s just not a serious diplomatic position, if you want a political settlement…If we are going to have a political settlement, it is going to require some significant shifts in Turkish and U.S. and Gulf Arab policies.”
There is additional discussion of the real drivers of U.S. policy toward Syria and about just who is introducing sectarianism into the conflict. (It isn’t the Assad government or the Islamic Republic of Iran.) Flynt also pushes back against suggestions from another panelist that the Arab Awakening has been a “disaster” for Iran and that one should not link the U.S. intervention in Libya with Washington’s posture toward the conflict in Syria:
“The Iranians definitely see this differently—and I think they actually are right on this point, analytically. They think that the Arab Awakening is working very, very strongly in their favor, in that any government in this region which becomes at all more representative of its people’s attitudes, beliefs, preferences, and so forth is automatically going to become less interested in strategic cooperation with the United States (much less with Israel) and is going to become more open to an Iranian message of resistance…
In terms of the comparison—the way the U.S. is dealing with Libya, the way the U.S. is dealing with Syria—obviously the United States has not intervened directly, militarily yet in Syria. But I think that the fact that, in contrast to Libya, Russia and China have been willing to veto three Security Council resolutions, which would have legitimated that sort of intervention by the United States, is a really important factor here. It’s certainly no guarantee that the United States won’t, at some point, act without a Security Council resolution. The United States, unfortunately, has done that before. But I think that has been an important constraint on the United States in this situation.”
Along with the U.S.-Iranian relationship, the conflict in Syria is one of the most important factors that will shape regional dynamics in the Middle East over the next decade. And Washington is yet again pursuing policies that not only increase the level of human suffering in the Middle East, but also work against America’s long-term interests in the region.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Not to hijack this thread, but I want to know if I’m eligible for a short sale and I can’t figure out how to find a local, highly regarded realtor… have you ever heard of this realtor? They’re located in sacramento, not too far from me and I can’t find reviews on them – Becky Lund & Associates – Sacramento Realtors, 8814 Madison Avenue #2 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 (916) 531-7124
I read Justin Raimondo’s post about an hour ago ( I noticed yesterday RSH had provided the link for it here).
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/23/debate-summary-israel-israel-israel-israel/
In its comment section we see Phillip Giraldi’s disturbing comment:
“Thank you Justin for being one of the few willing to state the obvious which most commentators are unwilling to mention – that Mormonism is not exactly politically neutral when it comes to the subject of Israel and the Mormon religion is something that Romney will not firewall as chief executive. It looks like Romney is going to win and we are in for a rough four years, probably to include a new war. Maybe Romney should appoint Bibi his secretary of state?”
The following is my slightly edited comment on the above issue. Please skip reading it if you have religious convictions.
Although I respect whatever others believe yet I thought, at that moment because of the gross weight of the subject, remaining silent about “the destructive effects of archaic religions on the current political events” was utterly improper.
—–
Romney… Israel….. religion…..God?
Are we talking about the same male God who, according the Old Testament, came down from the sky and wrestled with Jacob…….and lost!!!
Ever thought nearly all of the top analytical thinkers of our time and all the great scientists who have revolutionized our societies consider ‘god’ as the most absurd idea prevalent among common humans?
Bush was praying in White House everyday…..God told him to go to Iraq?
Bibi has likened Iran to Amalek
God’s instructions for dealing with Amalekites is:
“Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys”. (1 Samuel 15:3,4)
If elected is Romney going to disobey his God?
Phillip Giraldi is a smart knowledgeable soul……In my view his worries about Romney’s religion and his past Mormon missions are entirely justifiable.
Rsh,
On the debate.
Interestingly yes he didnt even from what I remember he spoke of the need of diplomacy, he just spoke the words of a warmonger: isolation, more sanctions and military action, above that he said that Iran wasnt allowed to have a civilian nuclear program. Even Romney that is considered the more extreme on Iran had a less belligerent attitude in the debate. But its quite obvious who they both spoke to, Israel.
I think it was very hilarious too when they kept saying “our allies in the region” in almost every argument they made, which of course means Israel.
Efraim Halevy mentioned the Cuban Missile Crisis in his talk at the Wilson Center last week.
Cuban missile crisis’ lessons for U.S.-Iran standoff by Walter Pincus:
“Khrushchev added: “It is clear that with a first strike one cannot today knock the opponent [the United States] out of the fight. There can always be a counter-strike. … There are, after all, missiles in the earth [American ICBMs based in underground silos], which intelligence does not know about; there are missiles on submarines, which cannot be knocked out of the fight right away, and so on. What would we gain if we ourselves started a war? After all, millions of people would die, in our country too. Can we even contemplate a thing like that?”
But the United States didn’t know Khrushchev’s views. Instead, U.S. analysts saw Moscow’s building of big ICBMs with multiple warheads as an effort to achieve Soviet first-strike capability. The United States described its own Cold War triad of nuclear ICBMs, strategic submarines, and bombers as implementing a policy of “mutual assured destruction,” meaning it could survive a first strike and retaliate with a devastating blow.
Not knowing each other’s real intentions, both sides increased their forces to 10,000 strategic nuclear warheads, levels slowly reduced over 40 years.”
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20121024_Cuban_missile_crisis__lessons_for_U_S_-Iran_standoff.html
Interesting debate between the 3rd and 4th party presidential candidates. Jill Stein (Green Party) called both Obama and Mitt Romney “Israeli slaves”. She along with Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) praised Islamic Republic and condemned Israel for making war threats against Iran.
Anderson said that Iranian president Ahmadinejad never said “wipe Israel off the map”. He said the elimination of the Zionist regime but his statement in Persian language was distorted to demonized Iran. Jill said that it’s time for the US to raise the bar for Israel at level with Iran and other nations. Watch the debate video below.
http://rehmat1.com/2012/10/24/jill-stein-obama-romney-are-israels-slaves/
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Your theory may hold water if the resistance axis could be splintered. There’s plenty of evidence that it will not splinter. For years Syria, for example, has been courted/coaxed/bribed by Israel, UK & US to break with Iran, and she has refused to do so no matter what rewards, including Golan. Arming jihadis to wreak havoc in Syria as punishment is only a sign of lack of options available to the west because the process is cementing the axis of residence into a unified front.
Similarly the political costs Iran is willing to endure in supporting Assad, tells me these are not merely fair weather buddies.
With Lebanese Shiites , there is a level of kinship that prompted Iran take time, and resources from the Iraq war front to go help establish Hezbollah, a political/military entity she supports financially and materially regardless of her own economy.
It is difficult for me to understand why you see US/NATO/Israel strategy is to clobber Resistance axis countries sequentially, and conveniently imagine a long enduring alliance to break apart precisely when that alliance is needed to prevent the “crazies” from even thinking of starting their moves.
If possibilities become probabilities, and what is probable morphs into areas of certainty all in the convenient direction of ‘war is doable/impenitent,’ then it is a very one-sided conversation indeed.
Actual events paint a very different reality. Even the hollow Netanyahu/Barak bravado about “surgical bombing” of Iran’s nuclear sites has everybody and their brothers go warn Israel not to start. The west has settled down to siege warfare for a very good reason: war was proven to be not doable as a result of the “test” in 2006.
My basic question stands. If Israel/NATO/US had the kind of freedom of action that your theories are based on, then what are they complaining about? Mid east is their oyster already. They can pincer this, and napalm that, and do surgery on the other whenever they fancy. It’s time to rue the roost; This is not a time to start wars, it is a time to be exacting concessions. Conclusion: there is no freedom of action; there is no cheap war option. That, Richard, is what they are so anguished about.
Let’s look at yet more evidence that Hack’s contention that Iranian military industry and weapons development is not sophisticated enought to combat US forces is false.
Recently Iran displayed an improved version of the Russian Buk-M2E SAM system. Important facts: the missiles are based on the most modern version of the system and are imporved to give greater range and maneuverability.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-9K37-Buk.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
Syria also has Buk-M2E systems from Russia and will probably be receiving the Iranian variant soon if it has not already done so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7YyDUEpKEE
Iranian version tests: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrgSyC-Vdxw&list=UUpLzKBlu1YmsKf6eq7w635Q&index=11&feature=plcp
2nd video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzRYrVoHkAo&list=UUpLzKBlu1YmsKf6eq7w635Q&index=10&feature=plcp
Specifications: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/09/22/262931/iran-debuts-latest-air-defense-system/
And since we know that Iran can detect stealth aircraft with a high degree of accuracy as shown by the RQ-170 capture, not even B-2 bombers are going to work.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 23, 2012 at 9:38 pm
“The ONLY reason it did not deploy a full number of troops is because it was over-confident of its air power being able to take out Hizballah. This is obvious and was clearly reported in the Israeli analysis of the failure”
Israel deployed over 30,000 troops that were defeated by Hezbollah’s active force in the area (3,000). As I and many others have stated, this is a fraction of Hezbollah’s total force. Israel did not “expect” that “air power alone” would defeat Hezbollah, it expected that air power backed by naval bombardment and several armored divisions would defeat Hezbollah. As everyone knows by now, it failed and was defeated.
“FIRST Syria gets attacked. Hizballah has not and is not going to respond against Israel for this for the same reason Iran will not – Nasrallah is not stupid enough to INITIATE a war against Israel just because the US and NATO are bombing Syria – and thus invite both Israel AND the US AND NATO to bomb Lebanon as well.”
Yeah and hours after Syria is attacked every air base within 2,000 kilometers of Iran used to attack Syria is leveled by thousands of highly accurate Iranian MRBM’s. Syria’s own missiles destroy air bases in Israel and Turkey as well. So your argument ends right there.
“It pretty much will be.”
Yeah…except for the 20+ million barrel per day oil infrastructure that will be decimated by the Iranian response. Obviously not even including what damage Syria could do against Turkey, Israel, etc.
“You’re just repeating an assertion which is by no means a certainty.”
Yep, because you never do that.
“The oil companies profit by it enormously, that’s how. The military-industrial complex doesn’t care how much oil costs – they get paid by the US taxpayer directly.”
Only two problems…1. Oil companies have to pay more for oil thus reducing their profits and 2. After about three months when there is a massive drop in demand and a global economic collapse occurs whatever added profits they might make disappear. Actually oil companies generally do not support catastrophic market disruptions because, even though they might possibly make some short term profit, the long term and medium term effects are so unpredictable they would prefer not to incur the risk such disruptions cause.
“Which is why I say they will commit every bit of military force they need to achieve at least some significant success in forcing Hizballah north and capturing or destroying a significant part of the missile arsenal in southern Lebanon.”
Once again Hack repeats his arrogant disdain for Hezbollah. Hezbollah is going to use hundreds of drones and hundreds of MRBM’s to destroy Israeli air bases. Yep, after Israeli air bases, artillery positions, etc are destroyed Hack believes that Israeli forces will have no problem defeating a force that has defeated them every time they have fought over the last 20 years. Unfortunately for Hack, reality disagrees with him.
kooshy says:
October 24, 2012 at 1:04 am
Among other things sophisticated drones (that can fire missiles and drop bombs), Fateh-110 missiles and the latest anti tank missiles. Hezbollah did not have any of these more advanced weapons in 2006 and it won decisively.
Richard, I see a flaw in your statement.
You say that that the goal is to attack Iran by first attacking Syria & Iran. Okay, lets go with that.
Syria will be attacked first, Hezbollah and Iran does nothing.
Hezbollah gets attacked next, Iran does nothing.
Iran gets attacked.
Well, the flaw is that if YOU guess this, then surely the Iranians have a plan for this too. I can’t imagine their plan to be, “do nothing”.
I’m sure Iran’s choice, once SYria is attacked, isn’t just:
1) Join the war
-or-
2) Do nothing
I’m sure there are other options. Iran doesn’t need Syria to BEAT Israel or USA. It just needs it to withstand it, or be a big enough mess for them to get stuck in it.
When bad comes to worse and Assad falls, and a vacuum is created, Iran could suddenly support a side to get in power. Or, even use the frantic, fanatic, ecstatic, jihadist atmosphere after a victory, pump in some money the right away, and use the energy against Israel.
There are still many other options. Unlike other countries that have Kurds in them, Iran’s relationship with its Kurds have been fairly better (unlike Iraq, Turkey, etc). So, using these contacts and the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, it could funnel enough money and arms towards them to create havoc in Turkey, all the while claiming no knowledge of such things.
Imagine, then, the Kurds making a mess of Turkey, with the help of Islamists who might find that replacing a secular political structure in Turkey might not be such a bad idea. At the same time, use some of the Jihadist energy towards Israel. Have Hezbollah join in this free-for-all party, to create links with the Sunni-based jihadists (because these sunni islamists seem to be the future for that region after the Spring, might as well be friends with them), and at the same time, use conflict with Israel, and regional choas, to make power grabs in Beirut.
With a few well placed moves, Iran could push Hamas into the conflict too, getting Israel more involved, now its not Israel Vs Hizbollah Shias, but Israel Vs Muslims, and in such a situation, could the newly empowered Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt stay in the sideline. If the battle is between Arabs vs Arabs, or Sunnis vs Shias, they can be against Iran’s interest, but if its Israel Vs Arabs, how can Morsi keep his legitimacy by keeping silent? So, now you have the Muslim brotherhood wanting to make a name for themselves.
This could keep Israel busy for a while. That’s all Iran needs.
So, there are other options than Iran just doing nothing.
Major powers examine long-shot options in Iran talks
http://news.yahoo.com/major-powers-examine-long-shot-options-iran-talks-154827014.html
Oh, this is brilliant…the West will offer a lifting of sanctions…if…wait for it…Iran does not more than shut down its enrichment and ship all its LEU out…
Yeah, that’ll fly…
Russia to Veto Any UN Motion for Strikes on Iran
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=144421
Duh…of course…
Iran says may stop oil sales if sanctions tighten
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/23/us-iran-oil-idUSBRE89M0EP20121023
US wants new Lebanon govt without Syria influence
http://www.france24.com/en/20121023-us-wants-new-lebanon-govt-without-syria-influence
More evidence the goal here is to mess with Lebanon and Syria.
Syria government ‘agrees to Eid al-Adha ceasefire’
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20066613
The minute Syria agrees to a cease-fire, we read this:
Syria anti-aircraft shell reportedly hits Turkey health center
:http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/23/syria-anti-aircraft-shell-reportedly-hits-turkey-health-center/
In any event, the cease-fire won’t hold and even if it does the negotiations will fold.
Russia: Syria rebels have US-made weapons
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20055271
Should be obvious where they got them – from the US via Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It would be interesting if it could be proved they came DIRECTLY from the US, but I assume they are at least transshipped via one of the other countries, including Turkey.
Ataune: “their agenda to promote any war in the Middle-East that can benefit their site’s sponsoring and viewership.”
Anyone who can’t figure out that “Antiwar.com” is “antiwar” has difficulty thinking.
Once again, they’re blaming Iran for cyberattacks…
In Cyberattack on Saudi Firm, U.S. Sees Iran Firing Back
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/global/cyberattack-on-saudi-oil-firm-disquiets-us.html
“Iran’s and Syria’s watchful inaction during 2006”
Iran’s inaction in 2006 Lebanon war? How could you say that it was this last Feb. when ayatollah Khamenei proudly and loudly announced we did help in that war and we also helped in the 09 war, where in that is the inaction? if Iran was and is helping and supplying the Lebanese resistance, he added if necessary we do it again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-says-it-launched-satellite/2012/02/03/gIQARNuDmQ_story.html
“He suggested that Iran’s support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas and for Lebanon’s Hezbollah had helped lead to victory in their battles with “the Zionist state,” as Israel is officially called here.
“We got involved in the anti-Israeli issues, which resulted in victory in the 33-day and 22-day wars,” Khamenei said, referring to Israel’s 2006 war with Lebanon and its incursion into the Gaza Strip in late 2008.”
Don’t try to BS the regulars on this site.
BiBiJon: “Iran’s and Syria’s watchful inaction during 2006 assault on Lebanon is not the same as what may happen today. In 2006 Israel was testing the waters. It only deployed limited ground troops towards the end.”
This was no “test”. Israel bombed the crap out of Lebanon. The ONLY reason it did not deploy a full number of troops is because it was over-confident of its air power being able to take out Hizballah. This is obvious and was clearly reported in the Israeli analysis of the failure. You can’t make up your own “fact” that this was a “test”. That’s nonsense.
“It would be a different equation if Syria was being attacked as part of a pincer movement to crush Hezbollah, and both Syria and Hezbollah were being defanged as preparation for a cost-free attack on Iran. The ultimate aim would be so obvious that none of the three could wait politely for their turn to get clobbered; they’ll all join in at the starting gun.”
You’re just repeating an assertion which is by no means a certainty.
Try to follow the order of action:
1) FIRST Syria gets attacked. Hizballah has not and is not going to respond against Israel for this for the same reason Iran will not – Nasrallah is not stupid enough to INITIATE a war against Israel just because the US and NATO are bombing Syria – and thus invite both Israel AND the US AND NATO to bomb Lebanon as well.
2) THEN Lebanon gets attacked only AFTER Syria missile arsenal has been degraded enough to make it easy for Israel to move through Syrian territory to attack the Bekaa Valley without having to worry about Syrian missiles. At this point Israel only has to deal with Hizballah – and the pincer attack chosen is likely to be at least minimally effective IF Israel commits enough forces to both sides of the pincer.
3) NOTHING happens to Iran during any of this. Again, Iran is not going to INITIATE a war against the US and NATO (and possibly Turkey if Turkey is involved in the attack on Syria) regardless of any “treaty”. Iran can’t do ANYTHING significant to “save Syria” and they know it.
“Participants/targets can include (immediately) Turkey, Jordan, KSA, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar in addition to US & Israel.”
Jordan is unlikely to be involved. The GCC will only be involved as a result of the US Fifth Fleet being in Bahrain. Saudi Arabia will only be involved if Iran targets the Saudi oil fields (which is not a certainty either.)
Again, the POINT of taking on Syria and Lebanon one at a time is precisely to minimize the impact of having to take them on simultaneously with Iran as a result of an Israeli or US attack on Iran.
“Even if Russia and China decide not to turn this into a WWIII, still the devastation won’t be confined to the original 3 amigos.”
It pretty much will be. And Russia and China will do virtually nothing – although an attack on Iran might provoke China to do some economic damage to the US by dumping some US dollars. Russia will do nothing for Syria except perhaps supply some military intelligence and probably the same for Iran (although it’s possible Russia may supply Iran some military gear overland during the war.)
“In the midst of this inferno there will be some uptick to oil and gas prices. How much of this the original aggressors can accept as a cost of doing business and still seriously contemplate war is anybody’s guess.”
The oil companies profit by it enormously, that’s how. The military-industrial complex doesn’t care how much oil costs – they get paid by the US taxpayer directly.
“I do think they will disengage long before achieving their military objectives.”
They can’t afford to do so if they want a “cheap war” (for Israel) with Iran. In any event, any amount of degradation of Syria and Hizballah is worth whatever price they end up paying – because the shot callers aren’t the ones paying the price.
The one exception to that is the Likud Party which can’t afford to be seen to “fail” again like they did in 2006. Which is why I say they will commit every bit of military force they need to achieve at least some significant success in forcing Hizballah north and capturing or destroying a significant part of the missile arsenal in southern Lebanon. If they want a “cheap war” with Iran, that’s the goal and they have no choice but to commit to it.
http://csis.org/publication/twq-risks-ignoring-strategic-insolvency-fall-2012
Rd: “Q & A are promoting their very extremist salafist. US has its own gang. This divide will continue to crack.”
That’s not what the article says. The US shot callers – as opposed to the grunts on the lower level of the US government – are perfectly happy using Al Qaeda to do their dirty work – as is Israel. In fact, Israel once had some of its people arrested by the Palestinian police for trying to set up a faux “Al Qaeda” cell in the West Bank. As long as Syria, Lebanon and Iran get taken off the board, they don’t care who they have to support, as was the case in Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda are the neocon “loyal opposition” – as opposed to Iran who are the real opposition. The US shot callers would love to have most of the Middle East run by “Al Qaeda” types – that would be justification for an unending “War on Terror” even more profitable than the one we have.
Jimmy Carter blames Israel for ME conflict
http://rehmat1.com/2012/10/24/carter-blames-israel-for-me-conflict/
I have followed Justin Raimondo and his site for 10 years now. He himself and his “libertarian realism” are completely biased in mainly 2 ways against Iran. On a personal level the animosity of Raimondo against an ISLAMIC Republic; and on a “business” side, their agenda to promote any war in the Middle-East that can benefit their site’s sponsoring and viewership.
Interesting article:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/nov/08/not-revolution/?page=1
humanist says:
October 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm
The situation is actually worse than Haaretz report.
There is a very popular and common fantasy among Israeli Jews that they can mistreat Palestinians that they would leave Israel and West Bank en mass and mover to Jordan or some other Arab country.
They really think that they can get rid of Palestinians within and without the 1967 Cease Fire lines with impunity.
They also think that Joradan can safely (to Israel) become the Palestinian State; yet another dangeorous popular delusion among them.
Last, but not least, the Israeli public think that Arabs and Muslims do not “really” care about what happens to Palestinians.
They are very very isolated in the Middle East; no doubt.
George W. Bush won last night’s debate. Indeed.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/george-w-bush-won-this-debate.html
One small difference though. It was funny watching Romney echo the neocon talking points of “Islamic extremism” and “world of Islam.” Some neocons have long criticized the US for not calling out Islam by name. Well, Romney did last night – that was a change. Other than that America is going to stay on her current path till financial hardships force her to alter her path.
And yet more evidence that sanctions are still failing…
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/23/268298/iran-private-sector-to-ship-new-oil-cargo/
Note transition to the private sector to export some oil, over 20 million barrels exported over the last four months using Iran insured and owned tankers.
I see no reason why my previous comment was blocked so I am going to repost it.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 21, 2012 at 9:38 pm
“I repeat my stance: The West (as well as the Saudis and Qatar) and Israel WANT a foreign military intervention. This is true regardless of what anyone on any side says publicly. It is a strategic necessity for Syria to be degraded.”
You act as if repeating a false statement will make it true. What about the fact that Syria and Iran would fire thousands of missiles in the first hours (not days, weeks or months) of such a conflict do you not understand. The missiles are not going to be “degraded” because they will be fired against military targets before that could happen. The only thing that will be “degraded” will be those airbases and other infrastruture used to attack Syria and or Iran. Thus it doesn’t matter whether or not the US/Turkey, etc. “wants” war or not, what matters is that they would be defeated in any such war. And of course, this is why the US has not attacked and is not going to. If the US “wants” war so much why didn’t it attack last year? Yet another inconvenient fact your argument avoids in its ongoing failed attempt to ignore facts and reality.
BiBiJon says:
October 23, 2012 at 3:40 pm
“The results, rocket firing tactics that defeated relentless areal bombardment and artillery cluster bombs,the toll taken on IDF tanks, and the ability to disable an Israeli warship, has helped all sides in more accurately appraising their adversaries.”
The point here is that Hezbollah’s capacity has increased enourmously as I and many others have pointed out while Israel’s has not. The spectacle of the complete inability of Israel to incercept a drone for three hours illustrates its weakness. Hezbollah will send hundreds of armed drones and use Fateh 110 missiles to bombard Israeli bases. The evidence we now have is Israel could do little to stop it. And this in turn means that Hack’s fantasy about a successful Israeli attack will remain just that.
BiBiJon says:
October 23, 2012 at 2:04 pm
“In the midst of this inferno there will be some uptick to oil and gas prices. How much of this the original aggressors can accept as a cost of doing business and still seriously contemplate war is anybody’s guess.”
Not just an “uptick” but $300 or more per barrel and 15 dollars a gallon in the US at least to start. After three months of a 20 million+ barrel per day shortage emergency reserves will be exhausted and Western economies will be close to collapse. Another month or so and the world will enter a catastrophic depression. That is why as I have previously pointed out Hack’s belief that a “long war” is possible or that it could be sustained for anything beyond a few months is delusional.
Justin Raimondo on the last debate:
Debate Summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel
And, oh yeah, America
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/23/debate-summary-israel-israel-israel-israel/
Quote
Not to be outdone, Obama went much further than he’s ever gone on the Iran issue, coming very close to Romney’s (and Netanyahu’s) position:
“We’re not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. And I’ve been very clear to them, you know, because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including Israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program, and that clock is ticking.”
Until now, the key difference between the two candidates on Iran has been this issue of “capability” — with Romney naturally echoing Netanyahu’s stance that we must strike as soon as we — somehow — know Iran has the mere theoretical capacity to assemble a nuclear weapon. Presumably Netanyahu will supply us with the relevant “intelligence.” The Obama administration, on the other hand, has been saying their red line is a clear attempt to actually acquire such weapons — that is, until now. “The clock is ticking” on Iran, Obama growled — and, as of Monday’s debate, it seems to be ticking much louder and faster.
Both candidates know the American people are sick unto death of war and endless intervention around the world, and both were smart to keep their warlike tendencies under wraps on this occasion. Yet there were moments when the mask came off, and both stood revealed for who and what they are — and it wasn’t pretty.
End Quote
Does Obama sound here like he’s intending to suddenly produce a diplomatic breakthrough in his second term? Or does he sound more like “more sanctions, then war”?
You decide.
Richard Steven Hack says:
“And that simply isn’t going to happen as long as the US doesn’t FORCE Saudi Arabia and Qatar to do so and indeed stops doing so itself.
Q & A are promoting their very extremist salafist. US has its own gang. This divide will continue to crack.
Off topic
An illuminating (alarming?) Israeli Poll:
“Israelis Support Ethnic Cleansing, Annexation and Apartheid State”
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2012/10/22/israeli-poll-israelis-support-population-transfer-annexation-and-apartheid-state/
I think an analytic book must be written soon about how the Israelis themselves are evolving towards adopting the same social ills (such as racism, Nazism etc) that had victimized them for so many centuries…and about the recent multi-disciplined scientific findings on why this is happening.
For me the part that shows “most of the heinous destructive actions of any tribe stem from the collective rewiring of their brains” is mind boggling….there we clearly see how the brains of potentially good souls are maimed by means of brainwashing converting them to atrocious remorseless individuals.
In my idealistic daydreams I imagine watching a very efficient global movement in action to ban, at least, the indoctrination of children on nationalistic or religious topics.
I really see a great urgency for addressing such an extremely critical necessity.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:49 am
P.S. In reference to “2006 assault on Lebanon,” it can be argued that the “test” was to everyone’s advantage. The results, rocket firing tactics that defeated relentless areal bombardment and artillery cluster bombs,the toll taken on IDF tanks, and the ability to disable an Israeli warship, has helped all sides in more accurately appraising their adversaries. While one can, as you have, see this as an opportunity to learn, and not repeat mistakes in the next engagement, there’s a possibility that the balance will not change, even if all Israeli excuses/mistakes are rectified, and even assuming the presumed potted plants learned absolutely nothing.
Perhaps it is time for another test?
When Mr. Erdogan compared the Syrian situation to Karbala I almost threw up in my mouth. Why is Fouad Ajami, a man of Shia Iranian origin spreading such propaganda? Now some of the stuff he says is true but why do these moral champions who wish to see the Assad government go choose to ignore that the alternative is worse?
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/108149/between-freedom-and-sectarianism-shia-and-sunni-and-the-syrian-revolt#
M.Ali
Thats of course absurd, even obama used the “wiping off”-quote yesterday, this are the most powerful politician on earth and he keep repating this myth, have they no sensibility at all?
A accusation of incitement of genocide as Romey proposed, is one the gravest accusation on could make. Still there is no fact to support that argument. I think that says alot about the sheer ignorance about top politicians.
Now does he know about the translation is false but still use apply it in his rhetoric? Or is he unware of an obvious myth? I am not sure.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 23, 2012 at 1:49 am
Thanks for the reply. A few points to clarify though, which may or may not change your views.
Iran’s and Syria’s watchful inaction during 2006 assault on Lebanon is not the same as what may happen today. In 2006 Israel was testing the waters. It only deployed limited ground troops towards the end. At no time did Hezbollah look like it was about to founder. It would be a different equation if Syria was being attacked as part of a pincer movement to crush Hezbollah, and both Syria and Hezbollah were being defanged as preparation for a cost-free attack on Iran. The ultimate aim would be so obvious that none of the three could wait politely for their turn to get clobbered; they’ll all join in at the starting gun.
When I say regional war, I have in mind a free-for-all payback time. Participants/targets can include (immediately) Turkey, Jordan, KSA, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar in addition to US & Israel. Even if Russia and China decide not to turn this into a WWIII, still the devastation won’t be confined to the original 3 amigos.
In the midst of this inferno there will be some uptick to oil and gas prices. How much of this the original aggressors can accept as a cost of doing business and still seriously contemplate war is anybody’s guess.
If by “defeat” you mean whether a Syrian viceroy will be in charge of Wyoming, well no I also do not think US/Israel/NATO will be defeated. But I do think they will disengage long before achieving their military objectives.
BTW, we are in the midst of permanent war. Issac Newton and Luca Pacioli have less bearing on this situation than Timothy Leary does.
{Obama likely would accept Iranian enrichment to 5%, but the issue is whether the Israel lobby will allow him to do so.}
You are so timid. Who the f*ck is Israel lobby to accept or not to accept. Iranian people are not as gulible as you think. The whole world is FED UP WITH YOU AND YOUR STUPID ‘LEADERSHIP’. You should lead yourself if you can do so to prevent so much hatred against you around the world.
Didn’t you notice that Obama tried so hard to please the zionist lobby by saying ‘IRAN SHOULD ABONDON ITS NECLEAR PROGRAM”? I am sorry president. Iranian leader like you never give in to the demand of a terrorist state like you do in order to be selected.
He is nothing but a Zionist puppet. You deserve to have Zionist puppet at the “white house” otherwise you would have done something against it by now. apparently YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DO SO, but you want to lead the world? How is that. Who is going to respect you dummy?
You have shown the wrold you cannot ‘lead’ a day without killing people with your WMD.
A very good critique about the recent happenings in Libya and the presidential debate by an extremely competent Black American. Watch it.
[youtube="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RglKUmx0fk"]
R S Hack,
Obama likely would accept Iranian enrichment to 5%, but the issue is whether the Israel lobby will allow him to do so. He made clear in the debate last night that the stockpiling of 20% U poses a major problem.
The debate to end all debates
========================
Among other gems in last night’s presidential debate was Obama’s assertion that from the very 1st day he took office he worked to create a coalition to make the crippling sanctions against Iran possible.
So, I guess it is settled. Ay. Khamenei was not being overly jaded. In fact, he read through the soaring rhetoric fairly accurately.
Also interesting, it was not Romney who resorted to blatant fallacies like ‘wipe off the map’, ‘will give nukes to terrorists’, or the ahistorical ‘runaway domino proliferation’ among the technologically-challenged petrol monarchies.
In a dizzying fit of self-doubt, Obama upped the “capability” ante to “no nuclear program.” Check wind direction, if you want to know what Obama might say next.
Fiorangela and James,
re:our earlier discussion about Ephraim Halevy. I think he represents the status quo, and he represents a possible way forward. If i were an entity attempting to make peace with Israel, I would have zero confidence in that peace if the Israeli security establishment was not on board. Concerning Halevy’s racist attitudes, i think some of it comes from his Zionism, and some of it comes from Bernard Lewis (especially the parts about the Arab/Muslim trend towards monarchy and/or authoritarianism). The boundaries of Zionism will be discussed in a peace deal, and the orientalist narrative as represented by Bernard Lewis is a dying narrative.
At any rate, if peace is attempted by trying to match up the narratives of the various sides, then those efforts will likely be futile. Genuine peace can only come about by a comprehensive security agreement that effectively calls a truce between all the parties involved and excludes no one.
Between Israel and Iran, i think Israel wants to be seen as legitimate, and Iran wants to see an end to the Occupation. If the peace does not address these issues directly then in reality the only thing being discussed is postponement of war.
Syria’s “foreign supported Salafis”
================================
Nasser says:
October 23, 2012 at 12:27 am
Anyone watching the debate last night would have heard president Obama take full credit for organizing the rebellion in Syria.
Of all the schisms in the middle east, whether sectarian or ethnic, none is more determinant of current turmoils than being pro/foe of American hegemony.
American salamis for Salafis is nothing new. E.g. the mujahedin were getting their stingers from Uncle Sam in 1980s to pry loose the Soviet grip, caring not a whit how long a civil war would ensue, or what kind of fanatical religo-political order will replace the sitting government, knowing they can be whacked when necessary. ditto 30 years hence in Libya.
But, Salafis are not the only takers of salami. It is something deeper than the religion they wear on their sleeves; think Saddam Hussein.
Are US voters influenced by the candidate that says the most idiotic thing?
“Mitt Romney calls for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be indicted under UN genocide convention”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9627019/Mitt-Romney-calls-for-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-to-be-indicted-under-UN-genocide-convention.html
“”I’d make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it,” Romney said.
“I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. The same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa,” he added. ”
How come no US politician or media staff ever gets tired and annoyed, and forgets diplomatic tact and answers such statements with, “Are you a moron?! Whats wrong with you?”
If democracy as a system of government ever goes out of style, it would be almost exclusively the fault of USA, for showing that it is a government akin to reality tv shows, catering to the lowest common denominator.
http://csis.org/event/iraq-energy-outlook
Assad to Brahimi: Any Initiative Should Be Based on Ending Terrorism
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=71941&frid=23&cid=23&fromval=1&seccatid=20
Quote
“President al-Assad clarified that any initiative or political process should be essentially based on the principle of ending terrorism and the requirements to achieve that through the commitment of the countries involved in supporting, arming and harboring the terrorists in Syria to stop doing these sorts of acts, the agency added.
End Quote
And that simply isn’t going to happen as long as the US doesn’t FORCE Saudi Arabia and Qatar to do so and indeed stops doing so itself.
Turkey Agrees on Syrian Solution that Assad Is Part of
http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=71931&cid=31&fromval=1&frid=31&seccatid=71&s1=1
This confusingly translated article seems contradictory. On the one hand, it claims Erdogan has agreed with Iran for a Syrian transition process that does not require Assad to step down. On the other hand, it says the West will achieve its goals regardless.
Quote
As he pointed out that the meeting between Ahmadinejad and Erdogan lasted for 40 minutes on the sidelines of the Economic Cooperation Organization summit on Tuesday, the source assured that “Ahmadinejad had regained the Iranian approach to the regional files. He told Erdogan that the United States wants to make changes in the region but under the condition that the three models in Afghanistan , Iraq, and Libya do not be repeated.
He added that Washington has clearly empowered Saudi Arabia and Qatar to lead the region under the new American system, ignite regional crises, and appoint groups to topple this and that regional leaders.”
On the Syrian issue, the source added that “Washington has authorized Turkey with the field and logistics management, a Saudi Arabia and Qatar provide fund, arms, and Islamist fighters whom the US and its allies want to evacuate from the Gulf and the new ally regimes. So, they either succeed in overthrowing the Syrian regime, and this is a success for this group, or it gets rid of them in Syria where they are used as firewood there, and this is also a success.”
From here, the West, Al-Akhbar continued, hopes to successfully overthrow Assad before the US elections, even if it was through assassination.
“If this goal was not achieved, as developments favor, the United States will demand other powers, such as Russia and China, to reach an agreement over Syria. By this Washington would have achieved its first goal, which is weakening the country, ripping its social structure, hitting the structure of its regime, destroying it as well as its economy,” the paper added.
End Quote
None of this seems logical. How is the US going to “demand” that Russia and China reach an agreement. And if the agreement allows Assad to remain, how does that weaken Syria?
The notion that the US can “get rid of” Islamists by sending them to Syria reminds me of the stupid idea of the neocons that we can “lure the terrorists to Iraq and defeat them there”. How did that work out? There are more Islamists than ever! They’re not going to be “wiped out” in Syria!
Quote
The paper referred to a settlement plan previously proposed by Iran, which states the implementation of ceasefire followed by a national dialogue between all parts, excluding the armed groups, pointing out that “the Turks are aware now that the Iranian proposal is the only intact proposal that has Russia and China support… and was approved by Egyptian President Mohammad Mursi.”
End Quote
The problem with this plan, again, is two fold and simple:
1) You can’t get a ceasefire to hold because the Islamists supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar won’t support it.
2) You can’t exclude the armed groups from negotiations because they will sabotage the negotiations.
It’s a no-win plan. It’s simply not feasible at this point due to the proxy war aspects of the situation.
All in all, this article makes little sense. The one part that does seem to make sense is the notion that the US is using Saudi Arabia and Qatar as their “stalking horses” to destroy Syria. But that’s obvious by this time.
The alleged Ahmadinejad notion that the US doesn’t want to repeat Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan is, in my view, naive in the extreme. Certainly the US doesn’t want to repeat these “public failures” without FIRST attempting other means. But in the end, the only way to even attempt to achieve the US and Israeli goals in the Middle East is a war with Iran, preceded by a war with Syria and Lebanon. No other possible approach can get the US and Israel hegemony over the region.
And again, whether that goal is REALLY achievable is not relevant. What matters is there is no OTHER option for the US to TRY to achieve that goal.
Nasser: “The armed rebels almost entirely seem to come from rural areas, foreign jihadists or from the Sunni hinterlands of Hama and Homs. They are definitely beatable by the Syrian military.”
You omit the Syrian military defectors, which, while few from the point of view of the size of the Syrian military, contribute a considerable number of comparatively well-trained troops to the mix. Also, the foreign jihadists are considerably more experienced than the the local Syrian rebels.
Nonetheless, the overall fact remains that they can’t actually defeat the Syrian military directly, at least not any time soon.
“Second, you have to consider the narrowing base of support for the rebels.”
This is probably correct. Just yesterday I saw an article about how the people of Aleppo are getting fed up with the insurgents’ violence.
However, due to the influx of jihadists and the availability of foreign support, a certain degree of continued chaos is feasible even without local support. And any over-reaction by the Syrian government which injures the locals is merely going to keep generating some local resistance as well. We should not under-estimate the degree that there IS “legitimate” local resistance to the Assad regime.
“Third, many who wanted the ouster of Mr Assad knew that their goal was unachievable without foreign intervention. As the war drags on and it becomes more clearer to them that the West misled them and no one is going to intervene on their side, I expect demoralization and defection from their side.”
Perhaps. But as the degree of foreign support increases – note that now the insurgents are actually getting PAID to fight – this could change. Someone in one of the articles pointed out that PAYING insurgents actually worked pretty well in Iraq.
But the primary point to remember is that the Syrian conflict is not a conflict IN ISOLATION. It is a proxy war between the US, Israel and NATO and Iran and Syria. The people promoting this proxy war on the US side are not going away any time soon.
So the fact that a foreign intervention has not happened YET is by no means proof that it won’t happen eventually. The insurgents only have to hang on long enough for that to occur and for their insurgency to provide some “justification” for such an intervention. Even a more limited insurgency than currently exists could probably provide that.
“So let me amend my statement by saying as long there isn’t any direct outside military involvement AND as long as the rebels do not manage to massively increase the number of insurgents by significantly widening their social base, Mr Assad’s government should prevail.”
And we’re back to the current situation where foreign intervention is still a likelihood at some point and foreign support for the insurgency remains available, thereby reducing the probability that the Syrian military can decisively beat the insurgents.
“Political accommodation can only be contemplated after the armed rebels have been decisively beaten.”
And since that is unlikely, such accommodation is unlikely. More importantly, if the insurgents ARE “decisively beaten”, Assad will no longer have any reason for accommodation, which makes it even more unlikely.
People who say Assad must win because he hasn’t even tried yet are overlooking the fact that if Assad actually did use full force against the insurgents in the manner of his father, that would merely encourage a foreign military intervention. Only if he could decisively beat them and regain full control of the country BEFORE such an intervention could be mobilized would he have a shot at retaining control and avoiding an intervention.
All of which begs the question: Why hasn’t he done so before now? If he hasn’t done so because he wants to avoid a foreign military intervention, then his hands are being tied. If he hasn’t done so because he CAN’T do so, he’s in even worse shape than we think.
Neither logic provides much evidence for his being able to decisively win the conflict any time soon. Which makes a foreign intervention more likely.
Has anyone heard from Madam Hillary, lately? She seem to have gone quiet…Just asking ;)
America’s(US) policy on the conflict in Syria is a mirror image of their conflict with Iran on the nuclear issue.In both cases, the US and her allies had banked on a quick and easy victory. This can been seen from the many timelines US officials, even Obama, gave for Assad to fall.The policy is based on escalations after escalations until the opponent collapses under pressure. On the other hand, if the opponent doesn’t collapse, the policy hits a rock and since the US is incapable of thinking straight and/or change, they stick to the same old failed policies and hope for the best.
They kept saying Assad only had “weeks” to survive..We’re approaching two years and the US and her allies have thrown all the pressure they can muster on the Syrian government, yet nothing’s been achieved.
On the other hand, the US has managed, quite successfully, to empower the radical fringe of Islam – salafism and wahabism and this will come back to haunt them. History’s shown that these groups have an agenda of their own and once it starts, nobody knows where it ends.
When one listens to the many FSA terrorist videos they post on Utube, they always claim to be fighting for an Islamic emirate(Afghanistan remix). Of course most western media houses like to conveniently brush over this and tell their audience they’re fighting for “freedom and democracy”.This is a clear case of American fast food foreign policy manifesting itself for all to see – no clear, critical thinking. They just make it as they move along.
Like I said earlier somewhere, the outcome of the crisis will be determined on the battlefield and the FSA will lose in the long run. Already, their terror activities have alienated them from a large section of the Syrian society and it gets worse, most of them are not even Syrians.
The backers of the conflict seem to have also concluded that, any political settlement will be bad for them as Assad will win any elections – which defeats the purpose of their beef against him. So they’ll continue supporting these “Al-Qaeda”-like groups until they’re defeated.
The fact that the fsa have now resorted to suicide bombings to terrorize the very people they claim to be fighting for tells me they’re at a dead end..They control no land and even their so-called stronghold have been surrounded by Syria armed forces.
Ps: The fsa also kills Sunnis that don’t support their cause..A great way to win friends, I say..NOT!!!
RT claims the following:
“In the USA, about 50 million people in key urban areas can watch RT in English and Spanish via cable or satellite. In February 2011, RT began round-the-clock broadcasting in San Francisco and Chicago via U.S. cable TV operator Comcast, adding 6 million viewers to potential audience. In October 2011, round-the-clock broadcasting in Philadelphia added another 5 million people to RT’s U.S. audience reach. A Nielsen Media Research survey indicates that viewers in Washington and New York prefer watching RT to other international news channels such as the EU’s Euronews, France 24, Germany’s Deutsche Welle, the Middle East’s Al Jazeera English, or China’s CCTV News (The Nielsen Company Research, 2010). In Washington, for example, RT’s audience is 6.5 times that of Al Jazeera English and 5 times that of Deutsche Welle (The Nielsen Company Research, 2009).”
Again, though, the question is how many people actually WATCH RT versus how many COULD watch. We already know that Al Jazeera English is in only 2% of the available markets, so being 6 times bigger doesn’t mean much – especially in Washington which is only one of a few markets AJE is even in.
A 2010 New York Times article on Russia Today’s influence, while significantly higher than Al Jazeera, says this:
“The entire viewership for foreign-government-sponsored news in the United States, including Russia Today, Al Jazeera English and others, is still so minuscule that Nielsen, the ratings agency, said it did not break out the numbers for such stations.”
So Flynt is still talking on media that isn’t reaching the vast majority of US citizens. He HAS to get on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox…or he’s talking to air.
OTOH, RT IS big on Youtube, allegedly bigger than Fox News. So perhaps concentrating on getting Youtube exposure would be an even better tactic. But then you’re competing with literally millions of videos.
BiBiJon: “More specifically, can you tell me under what circumstances other than preemptive surrender, would Iran, Syria, or Lebanon not start up a new front if any one of them is attacked by US/NATO/Israel?”
Of course, we can dismiss Lebanon immediately, They were attacked before and no one did anything to help. Israel could attack them at any time (if they weren’t concerned about having to deal with Syrian troops in attacking the Bekaa Valley – which they are, which is why Syria has to be attacked) and no one would do anything to stop it. Not Iran, and not Syria.
Iran of course would start up a full-scale regional war if attacked. That’s the point of the exercise, so it’s irrelevant to your question.
So we’re back to Syria as the only significant part of your question.
“And, if you agree that standing pat while you’re being defanged is in effect surrender,”
Which is not the situation if Syria is attacked. Syria can do very little to aid Iran in a war with the US. Syria can only attack Israel if Iran is attacked – and since Iran is far away from Syria, if Syria attacks Israel in response to an Iran attack, Syria will get its ass handed to it by Israel – and Syria knows it. So while Syria MIGHT attack Israel if Iran is attacked by Israel (or the US), Syria won’t like it and it won’t win.
But that’s irrelevant anyway because the current situation is putting pressure on the Syrian military already. Assad is not going to attack Israel unless he’s sure he’s about to be attacked BY Israel or the US. And if he does, he gets clobbered by Israel at the least and probably by the US and NATO as well. And this is in fact the plan – to take his forces out before an Iran war will start.
As I’ve said, the real issue is not so much Lebanon, Syria or Iran – in regards to Israel – but ALL THREE AT ONCE. Especially Hizballah in Lebanon which is much better dug in than any of the other two.
“Once started, I just cannot see this not becoming a region-wide war immediately.”
I never said that wasn’t a possibility. (But see below on what IS a “regional war”.)
What I have said is that from Israel’s strategic viewpoint, to get Iran taken out by the US, a war has to be started. Once that war starts, Israel has to ASSUME that Syria and Hizballah will participate even if in my view that is not a certainty. YOUR argument in fact MIRRORS MY argument or more precisely Israel’s strategic opinion.
BECAUSE Israel may have to deal with all three countries, it needs to try to take them out before dealing with Iran, with US and NATO assistance.
Where we differ is: 1) In my view, Syria or Hizballah might not jump in – but that’s irrelevant in my view because Israel has to ASSUME they will; and 2) Israel has no choice but to attack the weaker two countries – Syria and Hizballah – FIRST in order to avoid the problem of dealing with all THREE of them in an Iran war.
Iran, for its part, may or may not decide to aid Syria if attacked. But just as Syria knows that if it aids Iran if Iran is attacked, it will merely get in a fight it cannot win against Israel and/or the US, Iran is perfectly aware that if it aids Syria unilaterally, it will be attacked by the US sooner rather than later. And I don’t believe Iran wants to INITIATE a regional war any more than Syria or Hizballah does.
You seem to believe that Iran will, regardless of consequences, START a war with the US and NATO and Israel – the three most powerful military forces in the region. Really? Have you asked Khamenei about that?
Israel is not concerned about a “regional war” because it won’t BE a “regional war” for Israel. The only forces Israel has to be concerned about is Hizballah and Syria. And Israel can defeat both of those forces (with great and expensive effort, admittedly) in time without risking any existential effects. Israel doesn’t have to be concerned about Iran or any other Arab country entering the war against it because if they do, it will be the US they were fighting, not just Israel. And Israel will not be taking the brunt of that fight – it will be the US. That’s the POINT of Israel’s actions.
And as I’ve repeatedly stated – and you’ve repeatedly ignored – the people calling the shots in the US couldn’t care less about a “regional war” because 1) their persons and profits will not be affected, and indeed, their profits will be increased by such a war, and 2) the end result of that war IN THEIR VIEW – if NOT in reality – will be a fractured and degraded set of Arab countries in worse shape than they are in now. And it’s hard to argue that will not be the case if the West and Israel bombs Iran, Syria and Lebanon into the Stone Age.
The people whining about “regional war” are throwing around a term that they can’t define and don’t understand. It’s a term devoid of actual content. And it’s irrelevant. While there may be many “Very Serious People” concerned and appalled about the notion of several countries in the Middle East at war with the US and Israel – well, we’ve been there before with both Israel and the US. What’s changed that makes it historically impossible to happen again?
Some of the people here, including you, believe that somehow Iran, Syria and Lebanon can “defeat” the West and Israel in CONVENTIONAL military terms WITHOUT being bombed into the Stone Age. Well, they can’t. The relative conventional military strengths are quite clear.
Hizballah can survive whatever Israel does because it’s small, dug in, and has the support of most of the Lebanese people. But it can’t “defeat” Israel in a manner that seriously harms Israel long-term.
Syria can’t defeat Israel period. Full stop. It can only cause some significant, but again not long term, damage. And the damage it will sustain will be much worse than it inflicts.
Iran is the only country of the three that can not only survive the attack of the West and Israel, it can EVENTUALLY defeat the West and Israel in the LONG TERM by UNCONVENTIONAL means. But it will sustain massive damage for years in the process.
But that “defeat” is also irrelevant to SOME of the people calling the shots in the US. That “defeat” would be unpleasant for the neocons, the Israel Lobby, Israel itself, etc. But for the military-industrial complex and the oil companies and the banks who will all profit from the long drawn-out war, it will be “springtime for Hitler”. So they don’t care if Iran eventually “defeats” the US, just as they don’t care that the US didn’t win in Iraq and isn’t winning in Afghanistan. They just want a “permanent war” economy.
Iran is just another country on the list.
You’ve heard that term “permanent war economy”, right? If not, I suggest you look it up. The concept is real and it’s what the shot callers in the US want.
Mohammad says: October 22, 2012 at 3:42 am,
“If the past decades are a lesson, it’s very hard to defeat militia with native civilian (and foreign) support, and who are hiding in urban areas, no matter how big your army is.”
- I don’t fully disagree with you. But I think there are a few things you should also consider.
- First of all, this is not a case of a foreign occupier putting down an all out insurrection. The armed rebels almost entirely seem to come from rural areas, foreign jihadists or from the Sunni hinterlands of Hama and Homs. They are definitely beatable by the Syrian military.
- Second, you have to consider the narrowing base of support for the rebels. The government has better propaganda and has managed to portray the rebels as foreign supported Salafists unsuited for Syrian cosmopolitan urban life. Even people who do not particularly like Mr. Assad are terrified of these “country bumpkins” and “religious extremists”. Also, as the war drags on, the civilian population would become more war weary and support whoever more likely to restore normalcy and order.
- Third, many who wanted the ouster of Mr Assad knew that their goal was unachievable without foreign intervention. As the war drags on and it becomes more clearer to them that the West misled them and no one is going to intervene on their side, I expect demoralization and defection from their side.
- So let me amend my statement by saying as long there isn’t any direct outside military involvement AND as long as the rebels do not manage to massively increase the number of insurgents by significantly widening their social base, Mr Assad’s government should prevail. Political accommodation can only be contemplated after the armed rebels have been decisively beaten.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 22, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Oil sanctions have been a headache for Iran.
But not critical.
The financial sanctions have been much more destructive as Iranian enterprises have had to struggle to obtain their raw materials or parts from EU states (among others).
There is a very very painful period of adjustment that is taking place in Iran as certain enterprises die, others operate at lower capacity, and still others are being adjusted to operate with substitute raw materials and parts.
This process, once started, will not be reversed by Iranian leaders and planners even in the unlikely event that the Economic War againsgt Iran is “suspended” in the near future.
No responsible government in Iran will revert back to status quo ante of 2009.
For the Economic of War against Iran – initiated by US and EU – strategically is on the smae par as the employment of Chemical Weapons by Iraq during Iran-Iraq War; i.e. strategic escalation to Nowhere.
This strategic escalatioin on the ecomomic and financial front will have ithe ts consequences in the years to come; just as the usage of Chemical Weapons against Iranian troops and the threat of their usage against Teharan and other Iranian cities have had theirs.
Which brings me to the NYT story about on-going or eminent secret Iran-US talks. These talks, with the central state of the Axis Powers, in my judgement, if at all, are meant to formalize a cease-fire; sort of like cease-fire between Iran and Iraq in 1988.
That is, even if true, no strategic accomodation is possible at this stage when war is being pursued in Syria and in Iran.
I personally doubt the veracity of these reports – a few days before a Presidential debate in US and a few weeks before her Presidential elections.
Iranians have consistently declined to speak to US representatives during p5+1 negogiations.
Ataune says:
October 22, 2012 at 11:25 am
I agree, but that is a bridge too far – “the collapse of Iranian state from within”.
The world has dramatically changed since 2011; e.g. world trade is shrinking and container ships are looking for business – need I say more.
I also think that US is weaker than when she put into place the containment structures against USSR – and she had a positive view of future to paint for her allies as well as the buffer states – freedom, Jazz music, blue jeans etc.
As is, she is only promising more death and more destruction, all the while beating Muslims on the head to learn to love the Jewish fantasy project in Palestine.
This is their central weakness and no amount of propaganda can obfuscate it.
Richard Steven Hack says:
October 22, 2012 at 10:24 am
The Syrian Government is systemtically destroying the anti-government forces in major cities where most Syrians live.
That is sufficient for the defeat of those forces; they can roam as much as they like in the barren Syrian desert.
hans says:
October 22, 2012 at 6:55 am
US and EU have been strategically routed – in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan.
The wars against Syria and Iran are rear-guard actions to postpone the inevitable routing of their strategic positions across the Middle East.
The Islamic Awakening is a gift that will be keep on giving – to Iranians.
UN planning peacekeeping force for Syria if truce holds: official
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-10/23/c_123855862.htm
This called “getting way ahead of yourself”…
An example of the military-industrial complex influence on politicians…
Romney’s Military Advisors Work for Corporate-Welfare Defense Contractors
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/10/22/romneys-military-advisors-work-for-corporate-welfare-defense-contractors/
Guess who wants to attack Iran – and Syria?
Obama faces tough call on Iran oil sanctions
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/22/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE89L1G220121022
Since Obama has to extend the six-month sanctions after the election, perhaps what he does will give us a clue to his further intentions in 2013.
R S Hack,
Do you agree that The New York Times story yesterday, and the NBC News report, lead to the conclusion Obama in fact seeks a negotiated resolution of the nuclear dispute with Iran?
James,
Continuing from last post.
Not surpiring on their shia view(egypt poll). That doesnt matter much really and apparently the view is dropping. Because at the same time more egyptians have a favorable view of Iran/foreign policy for the region. Not to mention its rather their policies that are valued, for example the iranian president and also nasrallah have been popular in the sunni middle east, still these are shia leaders.
Turkey would do well to press harder for inclusion of Iran in negotiations to resolve the situation in Syria.
R S Hack,
(From prior thread) – - Hezbollah has obtained weapons from several countries including Belarus. (Iran is not sole supplier.)
I would say that since Bush’s second term a hot war against Iran was never in the platter. In the last 6 or 7 years, the US approach toward Iran wavered between accommodation and containment without showing any sign of being coherently led. Today, containment is the most plausible course of action for the US. Iran, not being as powerful militarily and as strong politically as USSR was on the onset of WWII, is being applied by the US a mini replica of the containment strategy against the Soviet Union. US is now trying to isolate Iran in the international arenas, to alienate here from the Western economies and is working overtime to undermine politically and militarily her proxies and allies in the region. The current USG position on the Syrian crisis can be looked at from these lenses. We should expect more tension in all the buffer zone separating the core Iranian state and the US zone of influence since these are the places where US administration is trying to restrict the most Iran’s potentials. The ultimate goal is the collapse of the Iranian State from within.
Mohammed,
I think its around 50% or even above. I also think it boils down to people down who 1. want to overthrow, violently the gov. which is a minority, and 2. those who want reforms / people that support the gov. which (I think) are in the majority.
Great to see Flynt on RTV, thats a sign that the views on RFI is getting exposure out there.
Now the debate between Romney and Obama, would it bring anything new to the table? Will Obama give be more explicit that he will use force? Is there anything new stances or views we could expect? Will he imply that Iran seek nuclear weapons, still National Intelligence Agencies says the opposite?
Richard, will you address the following:
=======================================
“The problem with RSH’s forever-round-the-corner war scenarios is that if Israel/Nato/US had the kind of freedom of action that Richard says they have, and that they will execute any day now, US/Nato/Israel would have no need to exercise it over and over again. The fact is they do not have the freedom of action. They cannot start a war with any member of axis of resistance without finding themselves in a regional war, curtsey of the “winning narrative”, which has currency not just among Shiites, and not just in the Muslim world, but right across the ‘global south.’”
I was referring to your comments such as:
“this time Israel will be pushing to destroy every Southern Lebanon village with those tanks and driving the population out with infantry support. The goal will be to depopulate Southern Lebanon so Israel can set up a “No Man’s Land”. They probably will fire bomb the hills with napalm (or whatever the modern equivalent is today) to denude the hills of cover.”
http://www.raceforiran.com/how-washington%E2%80%99s-determination-to-dominate-iran-corrodes-u-s-standing-in-the-middle-east-lessons-from-bahrain#comment-88386
——
More specifically, can you tell me under what circumstances other than preemptive surrender, would Iran, Syria, or Lebanon not start up a new front if any one of them is attacked by US/NATO/Israel? And, if you agree that standing pat while you’re being defanged is in effect surrender, then the question would be why US/NATO/Israel would risk your conjectured assaults if they deemed any of the 3 amigos to be a surrendering type?
Once started, I just cannot see this not becoming a region-wide war immediately.
Nasser: “The Syrian armed opposition is not and cannot become as powerful as the Syrian military; it is as simple as that.”
They don’t have to. They just have to survive. This is the lesson of most insurgencies historically.
Almost no insurgencies ever get to be the same size as the original military they were fighting and actually defeat the military in conventional combat. Instead they whittle down the military and at some point due to a combination of other factors the government collapses and the military becomes irrelevant.
This is especially true in an insurgency that amounts to a civil war.
I’m not predicting Assad’s overthrow due to the Syrian insurgents – that isn’t likely in this case due to the problem of a significant portion of the population still supporting Assad as Flynt says. But as long as the insurgency is receiving outside financial and arms support and a safe haven in Turkey, there’s no way Assad can defeat them completely. And the more ruthless he is in combating the insurgency, the more recruits and defectors they will get.
Syria insurgents receive salaries in US dollars
:http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/10/22/268065/syria-insurgents-get-paid-in-us-dollars/
1st pay day for Syrian rebels in Aleppo
:http://www.news24.com/World/News/1st-pay-day-for-Syrian-rebels-in-Aleppo-20121022
Syrian Rebels Get Missiles
:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578062842929673074.html
Syrian rebels may have acquired surface-to-air missiles
:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9615909/Syrian-rebels-may-have-acquired-surface-to-air-missiles.html
Syrian rebels said to cut deals for arms from extremists
:http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/17/syrian-jihadists-getting-weapons/
A war chest for Syria’s rebels
:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-a-war-chest-for-syrias-rebels/2012/10/17/2473099e-1888-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_print.html
Nasser says:
October 21, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Yes, and add to that the fact that the Syrian army has only used a small percentage of the force available to it. It has preferred to launch well planned offensives against specific FSA occupied areas with small numbers of well trained troops rather than the overwhelming assaults it could conduct. In almost all cases this has been successful, with the Syrian army retaking almost complete control over Idleb province, including the border areas which were once claimed to be outside of the Syrian government’s control. There is no reason the same will not happen in Aleppo over the next several months.
One may well ask oneself where such radical behavior towards the Iranians ever originated and why the international community acts so obviously against its own economic interests.
Three grounds are usually brought up to explain this policy of boycott and open hostility toward Iran:
1) The Iranian president is perhaps trying to arm his country with nuclear weapons.
2) It seems he wants to exterminate the Jews in Israel.
3) He holds the extermination of the European Jews during the Second World War to be a myth.
The first two grounds do not make much sense; only the third is serious and, for that reason, instructive. Number 3 and Iran’s rapid scientific progress will eventually break the stranglehold the Zionist have on the west. I think if Iran can hold until the winter Solstice the country will be safe and in charge of their own destiny. If I was a gambling man, my money is on Iran.
“But I also think that the Syrian government, the Assad government, retains the support of probably a narrow majority of the Syrian population…at least half of the Syrian population still supports the government.”
I think this is the most interesting part. But I wonder, how do you know? Are there any recent opinion polls you’re aware of? I am only aware of the late 2011 poll by The Doha Debates which found 55% of Syrians support Assad, but much has happened since then, and I don’t remember a recent repeat of the massive rallies held by Assad supporters in the early days (which could be because of lack of security BTW).
My own estimate was that a strong minority or a weak plurality (say 35%) supports Assad, a smaller minority support the opposition (say 25%) and many Syrians (say 40%) don’t support either side – they just want the war to end and national election be held. But of course, these are only rather uninformed guesstimates.
Nasser,
If the past decades are a lesson, it’s very hard to defeat militia with native civilian (and foreign) support, and who are hiding in urban areas, no matter how big your army is.
From the very limited footage I’ve seen of FySA and “armed groups” of rebels, they are a motley, undisciplined bunch. But armed with weapons of WWII capabilities, they can put up a lethal opposition. Just don’t look for a decisive outcome in their favor any time soon.
I agree completely with Flynt here that the US and NATO would already be bombing Syria had not Russia and China completely blocked that in the UNSC. The US tried REPEATEDLY to get Chapter 7 language in EVERY resolution passed by the UNSC on Syria. Only Russia and China’s veto – or negotiations to rework the resolution language – prevented that from happening.
This is why the US turned to Turkey to try to get a war started. So far Turkey has been slightly constrained from being too obvious about this effort – and Assad has been careful to not allow Syria to be provoked into over-responding to Turkey’s provocations. So the jury is still out on where this will go.
Of course, Turkey has expressed support for the cease-fire. It means nothing, of course – they have to say that, just as all the parties have to say that. They’ve said that from the beginning – with the exception of many of the insurgents who generally have believed they didn’t need one or that the Syrian government would just use it to re-group.
And that is the real problem. Any “cease fire” WILL be merely used by both sides to re-group and prepare to continue the fight. The radical Islamist factions will be trying to break the cease fire from day one because it does them no good whatsoever. And they will succeed because the Syrian government cannot allow them to have a free hand while Syrian forces are bound.
A cease fire is an impossibility given the extent of the circumstances to date.
Therefore no diplomatic solution is at all possible. And as Flynt correctly says, neither side can win under the circumstances. Therefore there are two possible outcomes: 1) the civil war continues until one side becomes exhausted and collapses; or 2) foreign military intervention.
I repeat my stance: The West (as well as the Saudis and Qatar) and Israel WANT a foreign military intervention. This is true regardless of what anyone on any side says publicly. It is a strategic necessity for Syria to be degraded. As long as their is no obvious change in the conflict between the US and Iran – and by “obvious change” I mean the US recognizing domestic enrichment and opening up diplomatic relations with Iran – then the US is still on a war course with Iran. And that REQUIRES the degradation of Syria and Hizballah in Lebanon for the benefit of Israel.
And given the Israel Lobby influence in Washington, as well as the influence of the military-industrial complex, I can’t see how there is ANY possibility of the US changing its policies toward Iran or the Middle East in general.
Flynt is merely being rational when he says negotiations are “the only way out” – but it isn’t going to happen in the real world.
I do not think there is any political solution in Syria – that time is past and Iranians will support Syrian Government until the anti-Syrian forces are destroyed.
Unrelated but still timely considering the topic of the next presidential debate.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/18/the_case_for_intervention?page=0,0
Flynt Leverett says: “I am not that confident that the Assad government can really win militarily, particularly as long as the opposition is supported by outside players.” That is the only part of his talk that I disagree with. As long as the outside powers don’t intervene directly say by creating a no fly zone, Mr. Assad should be able to prevail. The Syrian armed opposition is not and cannot become as powerful as the Syrian military; it is as simple as that.