Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
US Accuses Iran of Abetting Syrian Crackdown on Protesters
Interesting.
The Americans, who are typically highly reluctant to acknowledge the Iran-sized elephant in the room, are saying that the Iranians are helping Assad crush the Syrian protest movement (200 dead at last count, and there are now reports that soldiers who refuse to fire on protesters are themselves being shot). No one can purport to be surprised by Iran’s backing of the dictator, but there are implications to US officials saying it out loud.
It suggests that it’s dawned on the State Department — perhaps even on Hillary, for whose risible characterization of Assad as a “reformer” she is rightly being pilloried — that while an Iranian takeover of a post-Assad Syria is a definite possibility, the Syrian people will not welcome the prospect of submitting to the regime that helped Assad mow down their countrymen. And that is a resentment that can be leveraged.
If it is publicly recognized in the West that Iran is helping Assad carry out his domestic bloodbath, Westerners might ultimately be just a little less credulous about accepting an Iranian proxy as the grand savior of the Syrian people. It is not a foregone conclusion that a post-Assad Syria will go the way of south Lebanon — indeed, the protesters of Daraa are already chanting “No to Iran, no to Hezbollah!” It’s good to see that the Americans are listening.
Published in General
What strikes me as odd here is the idea that Syria needs outside help to do this. Aren’t these protesters like fish in a barrel? Assad brings in troops. He says “shoot.” The troops shoot. Some would prefer not to? That’s what he has Palace Guards (or whatever they call them) to take care of.
Assad’s father killed twenty thousand in one go, with no outside help. The numbers here are way smaller.
Does Assad need Iran? Or does Hillary need Iran to serve as bogeyman? After all, left to his own devices Assad is a reformer.
This can only be good, right? The collapse of the Baath regime would (possibly, depending on what power rises) snip the Iran -> Syria -> Hezbollah connection. At worst, it would involve Iran in a lot of effort to restore it. It could possibly allow Lebanon to be a real country, and relieve pressure on Israel at exactly the time they need it, given Egypt’s turn for the worse.
These are all positive outcomes which may not happen, but the point is, they are all positive. And not the least positive result would be some assertiveness at State, which is a bizarre sentence if you take a step back.
I think we can safely assume the reptiles who run Iran – and have for 32 years – are behind every evil thing that happens in the Middle East. It’s time to put up or shut up. Aren’t you all sick of hearing Hillary, the State Department, and other bozos acting surprised, “deploring” and “condemning” this or that Iranian provocation?
If it is publicly recognized in the West that Iran is helping Assad carry out his domestic bloodbath, Westerners might ultimately be just a little less credulous about accepting an Iranian proxy as the grand savior of the Syrian people.
Won’t help unless The Won recognizes it, and he never met an enemy he didn’t apologize to. If only CNN could some some pictures of actual dead bodies in Syria, maybe he’d deign to notice that Libya isn’t the only place – or the most important place – where dictators are killing their own people.
The U.S.? I don’t think so. I think this is the Hillary.
Between the rest of the mess in the Middle East and what will transpire, next month, in what I expect will be serious attacks upon Israel, there is potential that Clinton will primary Obama with some serious Democratic base behind her.
I hope I am completely wrong, but I believe Israel is about to get hammered and Obama will not do a thing. I believe Clinton will formalize her split with him, then, and then primary him.
Again, I hope I am wrong, as this is an outlook that is almost too cynical, even for me, but when I look at everything else, I cannot believe Clinton doesn’t have this in mind. She is a very sly, mendacious, and opportunistic person. Just remember, when she starts showing her hawk’s plumage, that this was the person that said to Petraus, during his testimony, (paraphrasing) “…it defies credulity…” when he described the Surge in Iraq as proceeding well. There is nothing she won’t say, nor nothing she says for which she will be held to account.
From the Jerusalem Post: