Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Is the US Trying to Provoke an Iranian Attack?
The Free Syrian Army and the Taliban
Thursday, 17 November 2011
Suddenly, it seems, there is relentless pressure on Iran--and Syria.
Time to connect the dots....
The United States could be trying to provoke Iran into attacking U.S. forces and/or Israel in order to create a pretext for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.
Setting aside the immorality of inciting an enemy attack on one's own troops and ally, the outcome of such a scenario could be truly catastrophic. An aerial offensive focused only on Iranian nuclear targets would leave U.S. forces in the Middle East--and Israeli cities and towns--vulnerable to massive missile bombardment by Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria.
Which may be just what the Obama administration has in mind.
If, in 1973, Henry Kissinger, as President Nixon's Secretary of State, could come to Israel's aid during its defensive Yom Kippur War by supporting an arms airlift that saved the Jewish State from near-certain destruction ... while at the same time also cynically deciding to deliberately deny Israel a decisive victory over the Arab aggressor ... so that the fourth Israel-Egypt conflict could end somewhat ambiguously, with Egyptian forces being allowed to remain inside territory they conquered on the Israeli-controlled side of the Suez Canal, in the interest of luring Egyptian President Anwar Sadat away from his Soviet sponsors by giving him a partial victory that would lay the groundwork for a negotiated peace pact with Israel and its eventual withdrawal from the entire (oil-producing) Sinai Peninsula ... if Kissinger, a German-born, Jewish intellectual, who grew up in a heavily Jewish neighborhood in New York City (Manhattan's Washington Heights), where his family was fortunate enough to have been able to build a new life after being forced to flee the pre-World War II Nazi terror ... and Nixon, an imperial and impossibly paranoid politician, who admired Israel's then Prime Minister, Golda Meir, and was, for the most part, strongly pro-Israel ... in spite of his alcohol-fueled, anti-Semitic rants ... could do that ... imagine the complex scheme that America's Bibi-bashing and most anti-Israel-ever President, Barack Hussein Obama, could be capable of concocting. As this reporter wrote just two days ago,
It is possible that Obama plans to undercut his Republican critics by launching surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. A limited assault, however, could be worse than no assault, as it would leave Iran's formidable retaliatory capabilities intact, allowing it and its proxy, Hezbollah, and ally, Syria, to bombard Israel's population centers with missiles. Israel would of course react sharply to such destruction; and Washington, in the interest of preventing Israel from drawing on its presumed nuclear arsenal, would probably come to Israel's aid by hammering Iran with waves of aerial attacks on Iranian military bases, missile installations, etc. Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria would ultimately lose the war; but the cost to Israel in casualties and a shattered economy could be horrendous, making the country more vulnerable than ever to U.S. pressure. A successful but botched victory over Iran could ironically provide Obama with the political cover and the conditions to force Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders and agree to the creation of a contiguous--and irredentist--Palestinian state comprised of Hamas-run Gaza, the disputed West Bank territories, including East Jerusalem, and a land corridor connecting Gaza and the West Bank areas. The new state, which would be dominated by Hamas, would immediately focus on overthrowing the Jordanian monarchy and, with the help of restive Israeli Arabs, conquering the weakened and shrunken--and partially dismembered--Jewish State in order to rule over all of historic Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River.
In the meantime, the U.S. President responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden and ending the Iranian nuclear threat would be free to step up his support for political and overlapping organized and state Islam in line with his odious view that Islam's Arc and Sword are on "the right side of history."
Obama of "the Muslim World" ... "Liberator" of Cairo, Tripoli, Tehran, Damascus ... and ... Jerusalem.
It could happen.
POSTSCRIPT: Don't assume that an Obama-style liberation of Iran would mean real revolution there--i.e. the crushing of clerical fascism. On the contrary; the Obama administration would almost certainly support the emergence of a Turkish-style, "moderate" Islamist Iranian regime over any secular alternative. The administration and its European--and Saudi and Qatari--allies are all pro-Islamist. They mistakenly regard rightwing political Islam as an unstoppable and, except for Al Qaeda and the present Iranian regime, pliable force, a movement ripe for manipulation and exploitation.
In other words, 9/11 changed everything--and nothing.
An armed group of mainly Sunni, Islamist-influenced Syrian Army deserters calling themselves the Free Syrian Army has found sanctuary in southern Turkey. From there, the group, led by a former Syrian Army colonel, has announced the creation of a military council to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. More important, with Turkish and Saudi support--and probably also with U.S. and European assistance--the FSA is conducting armed raids against Syrian regime targets.
Question: How is this different from the Taliban using sanctuaries in Pakistan to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan?
Answer: Whereas Pakistan's government, though thoroughly infiltrated by pro-Taliban Islamists, can claim to have limited-to-zero control over the lawless tribal areas in which the Taliban are based, Turkey's Islamist regime is openly supporting the FSA. Turkey's deepening involvement in the cross-border war isn't secret; on the contrary, Ankara boldly backs the rebels.
Which doesn't mean that the intervention won't end disastrously for the Syrian people, the United States ... and ... Israel.
Posts
