Israel to Launch War on Syria, Iran?
The Times of London details Israeli planning for a war with Syria and Iran.
Richard Perle, who sold the American people the fantasy that the US could march into Iraq, install corrupt businessman Ahmad Chalabi in power, and would be greeted with garlands of flowers, is disappointed that Israel did not attack Syria during its recent war on Lebanon. Hey, Perle, in case you didn't notice, the Israeli military did not do so great against 5,000 Hizbullah militiamen. So you wanted them to compound the failure by widening the war? The man never met a war he didn't love and never let reality interfere with his power fantasies.
If there were no arms industry, people like that would never get to be on television.
Note especially the ending grafs of the article:
' Advocates of political engagement believe a war with Syria could unleash Islamic fundamentalist terror in what has hitherto been a stable dictatorship. Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.
“If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” said one insider. '
Why assume that the Syrians would stay busy with each other? If the Muslim Brotherhood managed to come to power, backed by the vast Sunni majority in the country, it could fairly quickly establish order and begin concentrating on getting back the Golan Heights and "liberating" "Palestine". The Syrian MB would be even closer to Hamas than the Syrian Baath. It would also be closer to the Salafi Jihadis fighting in Iraq. And it might well angle to overthrow the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Israel might end up facing a massive, militant, fundamentalist Sunni state, aiming to unify all the Sunni Arabs in the neighborhood for a final drive against Israel, using Hizbullah guerrilla tactics and rockets and missiles. Sunni fundamentalists increasingly see themselves as caught in a pincers between Israel/the US on the one side, and Iran/the Shiites on the other, and would have lots of incentive to create a united front.
You wonder if that phrase, “If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” is how the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon feel about what has happened in Iraq. It is an astonishingly shortsighted perspective. And when did the US Pentagon begin caring who rules Jerusalem?
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/04/2006 12:32:00 AM
|
Facebook
13 Comments:
I read a statement of Bashar al Assad's a few weeks ago to the effect that Syria will take a lesson from Hezballah's playbook in light of it's failure to get anywhere with Israel diplomatically. I do not think that Syria and Iran will ever collaborate unless Israel pushes them to the limits. They obviously do compare notes, however.
Neither Perle nor Kristol represent a government, yet both enjoy oracle status. They and other pro-war voices get more hearing than Rice.
Concerning Iraq, Perle feels vindicated by events. He advocated letting a government in exile undertake most of the military and reconstruction actions, while confining the US military to air and backup support. It mattered less that there be elections than that the "liberation force" have an Iraqi face from the outset. Many dismissed this as naive, but the Rumsfeld / Bremmer formula turns out to have been no-win, and the alternative Shinseki idea of a massive occupation force would also have required the draft and become doubly alienating. However, a half-glass is better than nothing, and Perle, Ledeen, and Rubin may still achieve an expanded war before 2009.
You wonder if that phrase, “If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” is how the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon feel about what has happened in Iraq.
I am sure that this has been the neocons' fall-back position all along, if not their primary posiition once the veneer of lies was scraped off.
Please notice that the interests of America and Americans do not even tangentially enter the picture. America is nothing more than a source of finance and force of arms.
Professor Cole, I simply cannot buy the argument that the US would allow anyone to seriously threaten Israel. I suspect that the missiles would fly if only the hawks could find a justification. An attack on Israel would be just the ticket, wouldn't it?
Professor Cole:
"If there were no arms industry, people like that would never get to be on television."
From the "Wayback Machine", at least it seems like 'wayback'...
"We believe that your way of life itself is unnecessary, ugly, and un-American. We cannot condone your present operations; they should be wiped off the slate."
-- Paul Goodman, founder of Gestalt therapy, October 1967, Speaking to the National Security Industrial Association (The Military Industrial Complex)
I don't know what possessed them to invite Paul Goodman to speak, but in the current milieu it is highly unlikely that something of the sort will ever re-occur. The War Pigs are entrenched and creating a global situation that creates few options for peace, and many for war profits and plunder.
Then they will say, as in the "Charge of the Light Brigade", "Just shut up and hum the stupid little ditty you were taught".
If Afghanistan spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for ... Oh! Never mind.
"Note especially the ending grafs of the article:
' Advocates of political engagement believe a war with Syria could unleash Islamic fundamentalist terror in what has hitherto been a stable dictatorship. Some voices in the Pentagon are not impressed by that argument.
“If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” said one insider. '
[snippage]
You wonder if that phrase, “If Syria spirals into chaos, at least they’ll be taking on each other rather than heading for Jerusalem,” is how the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon feel about what has happened in Iraq. It is an astonishingly shortsighted perspective. And when did the US Pentagon begin caring who rules Jerusalem?"
It is an astoningly evil perspective to wish harm upon millions of people not_of_the_same_ethnicity_as_the_Israelis. It is also quite an example of dangerously paranoid thinking. At the moment, neither Lebanon, Syria nor Jordan seems to be preparing for war against Israel.
I found the opening to be revealing: "THREATENED by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran, Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according to Israeli political and military sources."
Israel is threatened by a potentially nuclear-armed Tehran. Cry a river. Israel is always threatened by a potentially this or that. Reality is that everybody else is threatened by a paranoid, warlike Israel.
It's hard to believe that there are still people who take Richard Perle seriously. My favorite anecdote about him comes from 'Charlie Wilson's War'--During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Perle had a 'brilliant' idea culled from the pages of history: inspired by a Soviet unit comprised of Nazi deserters, he wanted the mujhadeen to create a similar unit for Soviet deserters. After the CIA case officers stopped laughing, they produced sets of photos that graphically showed how the mujahadeen treated captured Soviet soldiers, which was in no way compatible with Perle's 'idealism.'
Again, a 'brilliant' idea, whose only problem was that it had zero basis in reality. I'm beginning to think that PT Barnum (there's a sucker born every minute) is the driving intellectual force for the neocon cabal.
NUKES FOR PEACE?
My sense is that mankind is approaching a collective epiphany, such as, “Is there no one in the cockpit of the good ship America that ever contemplates setting a course for peace?. “Do we bomb Iran? Do we use nukes? Should we take out Syria? Are there no course maps, no policies available that don’t engender hate, fear and the “rule of brutality.“
We need to bear arms and defend ourselves but if the radar has no reading for a world of peace someday, we will not get there.
Consider that the US will not hold discussions at any level with Iran or Syria. In a world where a cell phone and a cup of liquid can cause untold horror, who in their right mind thinks destroying sovereign nations that already detest us is best for making the world safer? It seems plain nuts.
Somebody needs to tell Kristol and Cheney (and Perle)to shut their yaps for at least a few minutes each day to see if there is not some alternative to incinerating a goodly chunk of humanity in the name of self defense.
I don't want to be all Buddhist like but surely there has to be some middle road short of “War-mageddon.”
Russian neocns preparing grounds for the new ME war?
Piontkovskiy on "Islamofascism"
Usually, news story does not make much sense when taken just by itself, it all depends on the context. Recent article by Russian ultra-liberal Piontkovkiy is a perfect confirmation of this rule. In fact, the meaning of this perfectly crafted piece of PR changes to exactly the opposite when it is taken in proper context rather than by itself!
If taken literally, Piontkoskiy seems to blast the US foreign policy for the apparent failures in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. He mocks Condi Rice for her light-minded enthusiasm about promotion of democracy in the ME. Look, says Piontkovskiy, what about democratic elections in Iraq? As a result, we have mass Shiite demonstration in Iraq is support of Hizbullah against America and Israel!
According to Piontkovskiy, the root of the problem is that US foreign policy is centered around fighting "war on terror" while in fact is just a method of armed fighting, not an ideology as such. It is radical Islam that poses an existential challenge to the West As for Bush, he lacks the scale of Winston Churchill who succeeded in persuading the West to oppose fascism and then Stalinism.
Also, Bush's "promotion of democracy in the ME" appears to be just a tribute to what Piontkovskiy calls "all-pervasive dictatorship of political correctness".
What is the solution for this horrible dilemma? Piontkovskiy's only hope is for … China! Maybe the Chinese will manage to do what West and Russia fail miserably, oppose the "Islamofascist threat to civilization"?
Well, there is one single word for Piontkovsky's verbal magic, and this word is Hasbara. Those familiar with Israeli PR, will instantly recognize the way Piontkovskiy blasts the Bush administration - this is pretty much the same rhetoric which was used by the Israeli hyper-right against Sharon for his withdrawal from Gaza which they took as "appeasement of the Palestinians".
What happens is that internal discussions between different neoconservative factions use to be pretty heated, and Piontkovskiy quite deliberately confuses his Russian readers who are not supposed to follow the ME debates in English!
Ironically, the Israeli media which are explicitly censored are more informative on the ME issues than both American and Russian sources. For example, Ray Hanania's discussion of real live "Islamofascism" in YNet is much more informative than Piontkovskiy's purely abstract rants which are obviously written without any knowledge or interest in the actual ME situation.
According to Hanania, "it seems that when the topic is the Middle East, the Arab World, terrorism and Muslims, any negative term is embraced almost without question by most mainstream American journalists because it is in fact negative." In simple terms, "Islamofascism" is just a political cursing which is widely used by the neoconservative PR to smear the Arabs and the Muslims.
The trick is, alternative opinions like this one are mostly blocked both from the US and Russian media. So, deciphering Piontkovskiy's rhetoric on the ME is all but impossible based on the info available to the average Russian or American who does not follow the ME situation attentively.
Finally, any concrete ME study based on the notion of "Islamofascism" should be completely discarded for good. However, this should be done on logical rather than the moral grounds. The real trouble with this notion is not that it is immoral and racist, although it is actually immoral and racist. The problem is, fight against "iIslamofascism" is as doomed as fight for the mass production of phislosphical stone, it is just impossible. This magical substance simply does not exist, it has absolutely no physical and chemical properties.
The neoStrangelovians already tested this approach in New Orleans, but the infidels STILL went to Houston instead of fighting each other.
Maybe they've worked out the kinks in the plan.
These people have such a cavalier attitude about the consequences of war.
Perle is a blood lapping monster.
cognitorex (where do you guys get these names? comic books?):
who in their right mind thinks destroying sovereign nations that already detest us is best for making the world safer?
No one, of course. This complaint never ceases to amaze me. The neocons DO NOT CARE what happens to the US. Their mad, from our point of view, scheme is one for sowing destruction amongst those able to stand up to Israel in the Middle East. And to make some big bucks from ties in the military industral complex along the way. They will use the US until it's all used up.
Post a Comment
<< Home