Some interesting quotes from UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc. No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015:
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."
"What Israeli military leaders really worry about - but cannot talk about - is losing their nuclear monopoly... If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself."
"With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria."
"Success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten and undermine stability in the region."
"Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no US ground troops will be deployed... the costs to the United States will be limited... Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as a friend, not an enemy. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime... With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determined to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them - and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I really like the way they throw words like "ruthless dictator" around. In fact, Assad was elected in an election that had much more validity than the recent sham of an election in the US:
http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/
Yes, it was only held in government controlled areas but how could it be otherwise? But still a significant majority of the total population voted for Assad. And talking of ruthless dictators, how is it that our Western governments are allied with such "democratically elected" governments as that in KSA?
"The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."
Oh yes - that old canard. Here is the neocon Wapo on Iran's nuclear weapons capability:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/13/why-u-s-intelligence-is-right-about-iran/?utm_term=.c123f4e70807
Even Wapo cannot make a case for Iran having a nuclear weapons program. Juan Cole, in one of his more lucid posts a while ago, nailed it. Iran was developing nuclear breakout capability, just like Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program
thus enabling it to respond to a nuclear attack by an unnamed undeclared nuclear weaponized country in the Middle East. With statements like this from the Defence Minister of Israel:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/08/netanyahu-confidante-threatens-nuke-iran-slaughter-arab-civilians.html
it seems clear that Iran should have some ability to protect itself. Now that Iran has signed up to the deal, it leaves itself vulnerable. But even that is not enough for the neocons.
http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-17/in-private-clinton-split-with-obama-on-iran
Don't you love the way these guys like Eli Lake write?
Sorry for multiple posts, MERC, but this leaked document is so full of cr*p.
"And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel."
What peace talks are these? Are they the ones where Israel agrees to give back the occupied Golan Heights as required by international law? Because we know that is not happening! I think what it meant to say was that a new Syrian regime might well be willing to roll over and acquiesce in the theft by the Zionists of some of their territory.
The beauty of the document is that it highlights yet again the simple, but generally hush-hush, fact that US ME policy is primarily about what's in Israel's - as opposed to the United State's - perceived national interest.
The tide in the Syrian war turned when Russia joined the frey. Since that time, the US proxy war against Bashar al Assad and support for the rebel forces has been exposed and subsequently quashed. It has been a long and devastating war for the Syrian people.
Post a Comment