Please rate:

Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel

Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel

September 8, 2013 - The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.

By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.


Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.

Item for consideration: a new column by the Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the chief think tank of the Israel lobby. Andrew Tabler headlines his piece: “Attacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran.” In it, he says:

At first glance, the festering Syria crisis seems bad news for diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. In actuality, however, achieving U.S. objectives in the Syria crisis is an opportunity to pressure Iran into making hard choices not only in Syria, but regarding its nuclear program as well. More U.S. involvement to achieve its objectives in Syria will inevitably run counter to Tehran’s interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assad’s calculus and forcing him to “step aside” at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.

Many in U.S. policymaking circles have viewed containing swelling Iranian influence in Syria and preventing Iran from going nuclear as two distinct policy discussions, as the Obama Administration only has so much “bandwidth” to deal with Middle East threats. But the recent deepening of cooperation between Tehran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, combined with their public acknowledgement of these activities, indicates that they themselves see these activities as furthering the efficacy of the “resistance axis.”

Like every alliance, its members will only make hard policy choices if the costs of its current policies far outweigh the benefits. U.S. strikes on the Assad regime, if properly calibrated as part of an overall plan to degrade the regime, would force Tehran to become more involved in Syria in order to rescue its stalwart ally. This would be costly for Iran financially, militarily and politically. Those costs would make the Iranian regime and its people reassess aspirations to go nuclear.

Needless to say, such a strategy is bound to be counterproductive, since—by slamming Syria, never mind toppling Assad—Washington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, who’ll be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.

In fact, both Russia and Iran have signaled recently, in the wake of Syria’s obvious deployment and use of sarin gas and other deadly weapons that they might be getting ready to join the rest of the world in condemning Syria’s chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia “Geneva II” peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhani’s new administration in Tehran is softening its tone on Syria, and it reports that the new Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has acknowledged the Syria has erred, saying: “We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, while issuing scathing denunciations of the coming U.S. attack on Syria, has dropped broad hints that he might be willing to join with other nations if and when the United Nations weapons team concludes that Assad used nerve gas, suggesting that Russia might not block a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. In his much-reported interview with the Associated Press, Putin insisted on waiting for the UN report:

“If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council. And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn’t be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.”

Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

But a change in tone on the part of Russia and Iran—the latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occurs—won’t mean a thing if the object of war with Syria is to send a message to Iran. As Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for Bloomberg, says, for Israel it’s all about Iran:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahu’s perspective, Israel isn’t unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.

Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syria’s primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obama’s red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple: “If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.”

In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry—now the administration’s über-hawk—repeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:

“The fact is that if we act and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here.”

Take Action: Demand Your Reps Vote No on Military Intervention in Syria



Sources and more information:

Israel, Iran: The REAL Reason Behind the Syrian Strike Plan

The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama's much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it's not about Syria at all. It's about Iran - and Israel. And it has been from the start. Obama with Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu By "the start," I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually...

"Sending A Message" To Iran Is Not A Good Reason To Attack Syria

| Hegemony: Why Israel supports the Syria Strike!

Iranian Military Chief: 'We Will Support Syria To The End'


( via thenation.com )



1 comments

  • Nijjhar#

    Nijjhar wrote September 9, 2013 9:29:34 AM CEST

    Hi Brethren,

    The Bible clearly speaks of the present time. Second coming of Jesus was Christ = Satguru Nanak Dev Ji. The Parable of Wheat and Tare, Matt.13.v24-30, is taking shape in the establishment of Israel. Wheat plants are people who represent or the sons of Abraham, who was righteous person or the salt of earth. The present Jews of flesh, outwardly, break their covenant with Abraham in that Abraham was a Semite and not a Jew of flesh. Thus, the present Jews as they were at the times of Jesus's Birth, are unfaithful to Abraham and as well as the creator of Nature at large Yahweh that the Rabbis kept alienated from their Disciples. In fact, Yahweh is not Real but the Shadow and for this reason he is called demiurge god.

    Now, there two; Mammon or God. Most people worship Mammon and they are sons of Most High Satan whilst those who worship God, they are Sons of Most High Father. Jews own money and media and they master over politics. If any politician does not obey them, he is thrown out of politics.

    So, they are clearing up the M.East for the sake of the Israel and that would lead to sending Jews rushing to Israel soon. Atomic War is expected when Israel is 70 years old as the Temple was also destroyed in 70 A.D.

    We should appreciate the sacrifices of the Chosen People to teach us the Moral Laws and for this they are called a Nation of Priests. In Jesus, we are the Royal Priests of the Most High whilst these hireling Dog-Collared Priests in the Churches fulfil Matt.12.v43-45 and they are far worse than the Rabbis from the Yoke of which Christ Jesus set us FREE by giving His Life as the Lamb of God.

    Watch my over 3100 videos on Youtube, channel nijjhar1 and on Disclosetv. I can help people produced documentaries to Preach Gospel that Jesus came to deliver. It has been corrupted by the Messianic Jews.

    Your Servant in Christ Jesus,

    Rajinder Nijjhar, M.Sc.

​  
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook