United States Picks Between Wrong Sides in Syria

President Obama’s Administration reached a decision to, in theory, begin to send small arms directly. This is being sold as the United States will begin to send arms to the rebels in Syria. This implies that the United States was not arming the rebels before this decision. If only they were that discerning in their decision making. What this is actually announcing is that with Turkey now falling into chaos with riots in every major city across the nation, the United States has lost their go between which had allowed them to funnel arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly originating out of Libya, through Turkey while being able to pretend in the domestic news to appear to not being at all involved in the Syrian Civil War. The question the American public needs to decide is has their country chosen the right side to support. The obvious answer is they have not but the reality is that there was no correct side to choose. All that is being chosen in Syria is which terror groups will lead the Islamic world for the immediate future in any future engagements with the rest of the world. Perhaps some inspection and tracing the history behind this decision will make things more understandable.

 

Perhaps the first item would be to attempt to discern who gets the credit or blame for deciding to support the rebels in Syria. The first item we need to state is that, like or hate the choice, President Obama really did not have much of a choice in which side to support. He chose whether or not to support a side in the Syrian Civil War, but the side was chosen all the way back in 1953 and possibly even earlier. It was that year the United States backed Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 28 Mordad coup, date of the coup in the Persian calendar, with Operation Boot under the title of the TPAJAX Project during the end of the Truman Presidency, replacing the democratically elected government in Iran which was proposing to ally with the Soviet Union. Needless to point out that this alignment and access to the oil fields were the driving motivations for the United States and no altruistic reasons were present. This was purely a case of we will put our man in for the oil and to spite our adversary, the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was attempting to make amends for the previous devious actions that inspired President Carter to back the revolt which brought the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini to power establishing an Islamic religious regime which remains in power today under the second Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The miscalculation by President Carter was quickly made evident as the new leadership in Iran chose to ally with the Soviet Union soon after coming to power. Perhaps there was just a bit of schadenfreude felt by the Iranians and Soviets from these turns of events. This resulted in the current alignment with Russia aligned with the Shiites and Iran and the United States aligned with the Sunnis and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully that is sufficient historical reference.

 

The current excuse for a Civil War in Syria has in all actuality become a power struggle for preeminence of the Muslim world between its two main groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Alawite Ruler of Syria, President Bashir al-Assad, is backed predominantly by Iran which has provided him with troops from the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Hezbollah terrorist troops from Lebanon, another satellite of the Iranians. These are the Shiite Islamic forces in Syria. The rebels originally consisted of one side representing secular interest and the other representing Islamist interests. The secular rebel forces have basically been all but removed from the conflict and have virtually no hope of prevailing in the conflict. That leaves the Islamist forces which consist of two camps, those with the Jabhat al-Nusra Front which has declared their alliance with Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda and those supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. The challenge in this is to find which side consists of the good sides, or at least the less bad side. President Bashir al-Assad has utilized intimidation, torture, rape, and other equally abhorrent instruments of oppression to retain his hold on power and his two supporting groups are equally renowned for cruelty and ends justify the means reasoning. This does not necessarily make the rebels any more benign. There is not much that needs to be said about al-Qaeda beyond World Trade Center terror strike and the horrors of a fateful day in September 2001 and their compatriots in the conflict, the Muslim Brotherhood, are not the choir boys who have, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “…an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” In truth they are exactly the opposite but somehow possibly still preferable to al-Qaeda as long as one ignores such aligned subgroups such as Hamas. So, this pretty much defines the adversaries from which President Obama has now presumably chosen one side to support. Perhaps he simply chose the side which was not supported by the Russians, but one might hope that such a decision was made with deeper concerns that just that.

 

So, President Obama has chosen to back the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in their attempt to be the preeminent guiding force in Islam while the Russians are supporting the Iranian sponsored terrorist out of Lebanon, oppressive dictator of Syria and the terror specialists out of Iran, the IRGC. The problem is deciding which side is populated with people who deserve the support of the nation which claims to be the bastion of freedom and human rights in the world. Truthfully, the reasoning behind President Obama backing the rebels is more realistically stated as backing Saudi Arabian and Egyptian interests and opposing Iranian interests, not to mention opposing Russian attempts to rise to power over the Middle East. As mentioned before, the sides were chosen far before the Civil War broke out in Syria and goes back to two fateful choices in Iran, the 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power to prevent Soviet Union preeminence in Iran and the 1979 coup that placed the Ayatollahs into power who then chose to join the Soviet Union block of nations despite the attempts by President Carter to make amends for the perfidy under the administration of President Truman. Now all that remain is to have one side prove out victorious and gain, for the moment, the leadership of the Muslim world. Will it be the Shiites with their Russian allies or the Sunni with their American allies? Why does it matter? That is the problematic part of the equation. Which side of this conflict would present the higher likelihood to bring peace to the Middle East? The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has benefitted greatly from the Arab Winter which was initially represented as the rise of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world but really has simply changed the prearranged winners in every election from some nationalist dictator to some Islamist dictatorial party such as the Peace and Justice Party in Egypt which is nothing more than the Muslim Brotherhood political influence. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has risen to power across Northern Africa in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya all with backing and praise from the United States. Those changes in leadership were of no consequence to the power structures as the dictators were Sunnis as are the Islamists who have replaced them. Syria is the first place where the Sunni and Shiite both have a serious shot at controlling Syria. Syria is vitally important to Iran as it represents a critical nation in the Shiite Crescent which currently exists starting in Iran and the Persian Gulf and proceeding through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia has the most interest in neutering of Iran and breaking their control through the heart of the Middle East would be an impressive first step. If, on the other hand, the Shiites prevail and retain their control over Syria, the potential for the Shiites to continue their slow spread across the Middle East and, more importantly, the greater oil fields in the center of the Middle East, Iran will continue to spread its strangling tentacles across the Muslim world. Iran had made an attempt at expanding during the Arab Winter revolution in Bahrain in direct opposition to the Bahraini Monarchy, Saudi Arabia. The Shiites were repulsed by heavy Saudi Arabian troops which were sent across the causeway which connects Saudi Arabia with the island nation of Bahrain. This was the second part of the Sunni-Shiite contest for preeminence in the Middle East after the Shiite taking control over Iraq after the United States war to remove Saddam Hussein. Syria will be the deciding battle. Should the Shiites and Iran prove successful the spread of the Iranian influence is likely to continue while should the Sunnis and the Saudi Arabian-Egyptian alliance will present a more stable future.

 

So, what does this mean we should look for in the future that might signal a change in the status quo? Should the Sunni win out in Syria there will be relative quiet, is the Middle East ever really completely tranquil, and the first sign of trouble coming would be the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian monarchy by either the Wahhabi or the Muslim Brotherhood. This would soon result in the final contest to begin for who will lead the Muslim forces in any eventual contest. Should the Shiites prove victorious in Syria their next target appears to be Turkey followed by Jordan. After Turkey and Jordan, choosing their next target will be problematic as their preference would appear to be Saudi Arabia and their satellite nations they provide protection for such as Bahrain, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar and Omar or Egypt in order to begin a march across Northern Africa. Iran is being patient with their slow and inexorable march to gain the preeminent position at the head of the Muslim world. But the first stop of this creeping revolution is in Syria. The worst result that could result in Syria would be actual Russian or American troops intervening in the Syrian Civil War. Should either of these nations transit from arming their chosen side to actual boots on the ground or even fighters in the skies, the other will be obliged to also enter the war. Where that leads is unimaginable and something to be avoided at all costs. The critical point of no return will come when one side appears poised to prevail and defeat the other side and the United States or Russia will have to either accept defeat of their surrogate or intervene. Intervention should be avoided but I seriously doubt that either President Obama or President Putin is capable of accepting defeat. That means that the only end to Syria may be decided across the entire planet and that should scare any reasonable person greatly. This does not bode to end well or even to end any other way than a devastating conflagration.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The War Whose Name Must Not be Spoken

The war in Syria has been labeled with many names all of which avoid the actual underlying root of the conflict currently being fought. The Syrian conflict has been called by some a civil war yet a large number of the combatants are from places other than Syria. Others refer to Syria as a war between a nationalist dictator against Islamic Jihadists yet there are Jihadists from al-Qaeda on one side and Jihadists of Hezballah on the other as well as the Syrian Army remaining loyal to President Bashir al-Assad, a nationalist dictator, fighting the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary which also claims to be a nationalist oriented group. Another difficulty is the lack of unity on the side of the rebels as the nationalists and the Jihadists do not coordinate and often have separate goals. Their inability to work as a single entity may prove to be their undoing because it allows for them to be picked off individually and divides their numbers and efforts. As the Syrian conflict has continued there have been two themes, one internal and one external. The internal theme playing out on the ground in Syria is the age old Islamic struggle between Sunni and Shiite and which will be dominant. The external conflict is also a familiar one that recalls the struggles of the Cold War with one side being the Iranians and their Arab allies backed by Russia against the other side featuring the United States with NATO and the Gulf Oil Kingdoms being led by Saudi Arabia. If we look back and remember the old Cold War lines of the Middle East we would discover the old symmetry with Russia backing one side and the United States backing the other in any skirmish or small war which broke out. When the Unite States backed Iraq and Saddam Hussein the Russians backed Iran and the Ayatollahs. Go back even further when the United States backed Iran and the Shah then the Russians were the best friends with Iraq. The one country which has always been close to Russia though has been Syria while the United States kept ties through making one Arab nation a member of NATO, that being Turkey.

 

The future of the Syrian conflict appeared like it could be settled quickly in its early stages as the conflict had all the markings of what has already occurred in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The one trend which made the difference is easily seen looking back at the progressions and noting the differences. The overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali happened with great rapidity and minimal external influence encouraging events. Not too far behind came the resignation by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak which required a significantly longer stretch of demonstrations, considerably more violence than had occurred in Tunisia. This was followed by a number of events in the Gulf Regions where eventually Yemen was the sole government overthrown which again took external Western pressure and considerable violence which has yet to subside completely. The continued violence consists of tribal conflicts plus al-Qaeda forces also vying for control of much of the country. There had been some serious contentions and threats in Bahrain which was subsequently squelched by Saudi Arabian intervention. Also almost completely overlooked was the display by the Saudi Arabian government forces which pretty much prevented the fomenting of any honest threat or resistance to the Royal Family’s rule. The next major government to be overthrown was Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi in a full-fledged Civil War lasting several months and requiring quite an amount of foreign intervention. NATO forces, consisting primarily of French, British and United States air power, were used to impose a No-Fly Zone over all of Libya and eventually even providing air support sorties aiding the rebel forces in their ground assaults. There were many rumors of NATO troops on the ground but such reports were more often denied, especially by the United States White House and President Obama. The Syrian conflict has lasted well over two years now and any possibilities of an early end are forgotten. There was no intervention by the United States or NATO as the Russians and Chinese blocked any United Nations Chapter 7 Resolutions which are required for the use of force. Refusing to allow a Chapter 7 Resolution has proven to be sufficient to prevent United States President Obama from taking actions as it has appeared that President Obama values any United Nations approval as necessary for him to act. Some have claimed that President Obama is more concerned with and subservient to the United Nations than he is the United States Congress. Without participation from the United States, even leading from behind style support like in Libya, there was absolutely no possibility of the rest of NATO or the European Union taking action by themselves. Thus no outside interventions have led to longer conflicts as time progressed, which also brought more vicious fighting and far higher casualties both among combatants and the innocent civilians. Further proof of this is the oft ignored fact that the fighting has yet to completely end in Libya as the different tribes are still contesting control of the more remote areas far from the major cities.

 

As the war continues to grind on the main fight has evolved to where there are now five main forces vying for control. There are still the two rebel groups where the nationalist forces have been unable to refresh their troops as the fighting has taken its toll while the Jihadists, who have declared their complete allegiance with al-Qaeda, have been drawing in support from Sunni Jihadists throughout the Arab World and have become the stronger force amongst the rebels. On the other side are the forces supporting the continued rule by al-Assad. Even here there are two main groups; one being Syrian military forces who have remained loyal to al-Assad largely because they are, like him, Alawite Shiites facing likely death should he lose, and the other group being loyal to Iranian interests and who will continue to fight even should al-Assad fall from power as using Syria as a base and staging area as well as a vital link in the Iranian Crescent from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. The two parts of the Iranian forces are the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) who are actual Iranian trained military troops specializing in foreign interventions and terror support and Hezballah which is the Iranian proxy government in Lebanon where they have replaced the Lebanese government through voter intimidation and assassinations in order to form a favorable coalition. These Iranian forces in Syria pose the greatest threat to the lives of civilians as they have little compunction when it comes to slaughtering civilians or anybody else who may be considered an obstacle or simply in the wrong place at an inconvenient time. Should the fighting continue long enough the Syrian Civil War will mostly be fought between forces which are not Syrian in their origins, they will be al-Qaeda fighting against the IRGC and Hezballah. As far as anybody intervening, the only country likely to take such measures as things stand now are the Russians, but for the time being they will most likely simply supply munitions and other material in support of al-Assad. The one significant introduction the Russians are currently planning is the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which they have stated will not arrive before some time in 2014. Of course, should any NATO, European Union or United States forces enter in support of the rebels, then the Russians would likely send the S-300 missile systems immediately and possibly provide their own air support or whatever forces would be required to counter such measures.

 

It is in the possibilities that Syria could spread beyond its own borders that possess the greatest threat. The possibility of Russian intervention is currently not a significant threat and would remain insignificant for as long as al-Assad is not in dire threat of being dethroned. The other possible situation where Russia would enter the conflict would be in response to the United States, NATO, European Union, or possibly even Turkey or Israel were to enter on the side of the rebels against al-Assad. The other threat that exists is al-Assad taking the option of expanding the war which could be accomplished in four ways, by attacking Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, or Israel or any combination of these nations. We can very easily rule out Iraq as they have become an extension of Iran and are almost completely under Iranian influence. Al-Assad would have to completely lose his senses to open a front with Turkey as the Turkish military is vastly better equipped and trained than is the Syrian military. Opening a front with Jordan might be an option but doing such would not likely be to any advantage for al-Assad and his allies, so that is also unlikely. Attacking Israel is an entirely different scenario. It is a distinct possibility that al-Assad might believe that should the Israelis once again use their air power to destroy armaments or other supplies for any reason, such being transferred into Lebanon for Hezballah to use at their convenience against Israel being the most probable reason as such has already occurred, that by retaliating against the Israelis and declaring an Arab Holy War, a Jihad, for the annihilation of every Jew and the liberation of all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, a genocidal war of conquest, that such an act would gather the entirety of the Arab World to fight by his side against the common enemy. The one problem with such a plan is that should nobody join in his declared Holy War, then he would be facing Israel alone. Facing Israeli Defense Forces would definitely tip the balance of power away from al-Assad, but it would also not be beneficial to the IRGC forces or to the Hezballah forces as Israel would very likely do whatever it took to eliminate their presence as long as they were in the neighborhood. The only reason such a suicidal attack by Syrian Military on Israel might be taken would be in the hopes that once Israel retaliated and was earnestly engaged that Russia might be persuaded that this was actually an Israeli initiative and thus have Russian troops enter in order to rescue al-Assad and the rest of the Russian supported forces. After all, Russia has a number of clients’ forces currently operating within Syria with al-Assad, and old and loyal client, Iran, also a long time client, and Hezballah.

 

Whatever the future holds, the conflict in Syria will continue to take its toll in life and property all because when supporting the rebels might have resulted in a definitive and quick war with the nationalists likely to prevail, there was nobody willing to step up and provide the necessary support. That has brought the world to the point where Russia has cast their dye into the waters promising to act should anybody interfere in Syria against al-Assad. Meanwhile, it appears that John McCain and President Obama are about to repeat the same dance they performed which led to the United States with French and British assistance provided air-cover and support for the rebel forces in Libya. This could prove to be the first domino falling that starts the torrent of dominoes rippling across the face of the globe. Russian promises are best not tempted, but somehow I doubt the President Obama believes the Russians are serious or would dare to oppose him. President Obama possesses sufficient hubris that it just might be that he believes that he can stand toe-to-toe and force Russian President Putin to blink. The only question is will President Putin need to take off his shirt before the staring contest begins because there is no question that Putin does not know how to blink.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Potential Results if Obama Orders Syria as a No-Fly Zone

According to inside the White House officials, President Obama’s White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone over Syria. The no-fly zone would be enforced by the United States as well as France and Great Britain and other NATO members as the next step in assisting the Syrian rebels against Syrian Dictator Bashir al-Assad. The rebels forces which have presumably been vetted and approved would also receive arms as a part of this new offensive. This was part of the reasoning why Senator John McCain just took an “unscheduled” and “private” trip into Syria to talk with the rebel leaders, the good rebels and not the bad rebels, and get a feeling for level of trust and their needs. There are a few questions which deserve a public debate before such drastic actions are undertaken and perhaps we could start the conversation here.

 

The first item would be to actually enumerate the potential consequences of such an act. We will hear from President Obama as well as Senator McCain and others in his echo chamber how we are allied and have the praise and agreement from the Saudis, Turkey’s leadership, and the members of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council). We will not hear about the opposition and standing threats which exist and have come from Russia’s President Putin, Hezballah’s Leader Nasrallah and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Russian President Putin has made his position exquisitely clear stating that Russia fully backs Syrian President al-Assad in his measures taken to put down the revolution being carried out against him by terrorist entities and Russia will back him against any outside interference by any groups or nation. Hezballah’s Nasrallah has promised that his organization has global reach and has in place assets that can be utilized against anybody found to be interfering in the fighting in Syria or who try to influence things against Hezballah in Lebanon. The Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has warned that any country which chooses to assist the rebels in their illegal revolution against their ally al-Assad will have their hand and foot cut off on opposing sides, whatever that actually means. Any way you look at these threats, one can be assured that ramification of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria could very quickly lead to an escalating situation that could very easily get out of control leading to a much greater conflagration than we are presently witnessing.

 

But what are the likely initial and secondary events which would most likely actually follow the placing of a no-fly zone over Syrian airspace and arming the rebels with light and some crew served weapons but not heavy weapons. Some of the response would depend on how the no-fly zone were implemented and enforced. If the rebels were supplied with MANPAD Systems and Stinger Missiles, they would then be capable of providing their own air defenses. This method would allow for a suitable threat to exist on any Syrian air attacks that Bashir al-Assad very well might be very restrictive on his use of his air strike capabilities. This method would allow for only a minimal response from Russia who would likely provide al-Assad with potentially ARMs (anti-radar missiles) with which to counter the new armaments given the rebels thus returning a semblance of balance to the fields of combat. But if President Obama and his allies decide to take the more direct and conventional means of enforcing a no-fly zone over Syrian, this would generate a completely different response all around. The direct method includes initially flying sorties over all Syrian airfields and bases taking out as many aircraft such as helicopters and fighters as can be struck on the ground and bombing the runways to render them unusable. This is followed up by keeping air resources at the ready twenty-four hours a day in order to scramble and take out any aircraft that take to the skies within Syria and attacking those which have threat capability against the rebel forces. This direct approach could lead to some very serious responses. The Russians could deploy the S-300 and S-300M air defense missile systems in Syria and even man them with Russian troops. These are top of the line and very capable systems which could pose a serious threat to any United States or NATO planes sent over Syria. Putin might even go so far as to dispatch Russian fighter jets with Russian pilots to engage the United States and allied aircraft. Russia already has at least one known missile destroyer sitting just off the coast of Syria in addition to the Russian naval base in Tartus, Syria. This is just two of a myriad of responses the Russians could potentially take as a response to a United States applied no-fly zone over Syria, what about Iran and Hezballah?

 

Iran is a completely different story and much more of an unknown enigma. Much of the Iranian weapons capability comes in the form of missiles and rockets. The majority are ground-to-ground types but they also possess capabilities in ground-to-air and both ground-to-ship and ship-to-ship. Their navy consists mostly of fast attack craft armed with ship-to-ship missiles, torpedoes, and automatic cannons or heavy machineguns. The initial threat the Iranians could apply in response would be the closure of the Straits of Hormuz using various anti-ship mines backed up with land-to-sea-missiles already in place along the coastal region, fast attack craft patrolling the waters, longer range missiles stationed inland, and anti-ship artillery placed along the coastal areas. Simultaneously, the Iranians could mount a mass fast attack craft assault on the United States fleet positions with the targeted intent of taking out any aircraft carriers in the area. Such an attack could be coordinated with missile and artillery support from bases throughout Iran as well as anti-ship batteries along the coasts and on the Iranian owned islands in the gulf. Where such an attack may prove suicidal for many of the attacking Iranian ships, the United States would very likely also take some damage with the possibility that such damages could be quite costly and dear. One American warship sunk would likely be more costly than all the Iranian losses in such a confrontation and there would also be the propaganda victory that Iran would claim and would likely be believed and hailed as a sign from Allah across the Muslim World. There is one other unknown about Iran and that is concerning their nuclear program. The Iranians could very well already have a deliverable nuclear weapon, be it an actual twenty kiloton bomb or a smaller yield EMP styled device. Such a weapon might even be deliverable by a missile and could already be in place on a ship off the coasts of the United States or in Venezuela just waiting for the command. This is a potential about which the United States has only rumors and intelligence from satellites and other countries as it is highly doubtful that the United States has any HUMIT placed within Iran.

 

The final piece of the puzzle is an even greater unknown that Iran, that is Hezballah. It is known that Hezballah has infiltrated and is in league with the Mexican drug cartels. What is unknown is how extensive the Hezballah has positioned assets within the United States. The one truth about Hezballah is that until the 9/11 attack by Osama bin Laden, Hezballah had murdered the most American citizens of any terrorist organization. It was Hezballah who blew up the Marine barracks in Lebanon on October 23, 1983. Where Hezballah is not likely to be a significant threat against American military might, they are extremely capable in dispensing terror in a well-planned and systematic manner which would maximize the effects causing the maximum panic. Their style is to use explosions often to kidnap victims and then either hold them for ransom or simply to kill them one by one over an extended period making sure to make each execution as grizzly and horrid as possible while gaining it word-wide publication using both the old media and the internet. Most of the effect of a Hezballah assault would be mental stress, fear, and intimidation. Hezballah does have the capability to use explosive devices of massive effect and has shown the ability to utilize their assets to maximize their impact. A Hezballah assault would be a steady number of attacks likely spread over a prolonged period with varied lengths of time between attacks and seemingly unpredictable locations. Their initial series of attacks would be dispersed and occur in a swarm and they would repeat the use of swarms of attacks in a short period in order to cause trepidation that there would be a series of bombings or attacks to follow any single attack thus maximizing the public’s fears.

 

The main reason not to enter into the Syrian civil war has little to do with the problems that retaliation by Syria, Russia, Hezballah, or Iran might unleash. The reality is there are no good guys on any side in this war. There are no allies of the United States or Europe. We would be backing the least offensive of the sides but they would still be offensive. The other problem would be Bashir al-Assad’s response to the United States imposing a no-fly zone over Syria. Bashir al-Assad would resort to using his missiles of which he has a rather large supply. He would use these missiles against any United States assets in Iraq that were within his range as well as the fleet in the Mediterranean Sea and then also on Jordan, Turkey and of course Israel. Along with al-Assad striking Israel, we could also count on Hezballah unleashing thousands upon tens of thousands of missiles on Israel. The odds are Israel would strike back at Lebanon and leave Syria to Turkey, the United States and NATO. Israel has proven they have no dog in the Syrian civil war. But in Lebanon Israel has interests which simply put is to remove Hezballah from controlling the Lebanese government. There may even be the possibility that Iran may use some of the Iraqi assets and mount an attack on Saudi Arabia while all this was taking up everybody’s attentions. The basic truth is that there is no happy side to entering into the Syrian imbroglio, only heartache and great amounts of loss and pain. This is one fight where the best manner to employ is not to fight. Plan all President Obama wishes but the Congress should be demanding that the United States take a pass on Syria but instead they are egging the President on to engage in this evil and deceptive involvement. Mr. President, Please, just say no.

 

Beyond the Cusp