Syrian conundrum

The Syrians say:

Speaking to an Arabic-language radio station operated by the United States, Syria's Deputy Information Minister Halaf Al-Maftah said that Israel would face not only Syria in the event that the US, Britain and France attempted to unseat Bashar al-Assad. A coalition consisting of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria would respond to any attack against Assad with a response against Israel. In addition, terrorist groups in Syria and Lebanon would attack Israel with full force. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171311

"The war effort lead by the United States and their allies will serve the interests of Israel and secondly Al-Nusra Front," an Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist group in Syria, said Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171333

From Iran,

Iran will unleash a barrage of hundreds of missiles against Israel and U.S. targets in Iraq if Iran or Syria are attacked, an Iranian Web site threatened on Monday, in comments linked to an alleged Israeli air strike on a secret Syrian nuclear facility. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran-threatens-missile-strike-israel-us-targets-if-syria-attacked#sthash.oddzxr0O.dpuf

It is worth noting that Iran has threatened to attack Israel each of the several times the IDF has hit – usually Russian – military material in Syria. The IDF has not attacked any Russian assets, e.g., ships in port.

And in Russia, Putin warns the U.S. and its “allies” that it will act in Assad’s behalf if its proxy, Syria, is attacked.

On the other side

Several EU countries are rattling their sabers and massing as if they are preparing to attack Syria, but from Iraq experience, Obungler & Company must have to wonder “how much for how long.”

In Washington, between vacations, Obungler and his State Department secretary continue to talk; making threats against Syria and promises to protect Israel “in the event of.”

Hopefully someone in Jerusalem – despite State’s opposition, Jerusalem IS Israel’s capital – has studied U.S. history. If so. They will know not to put a lot of faith in U.S. promises. Consider Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Afghanistan all over again

Obungler seems determined to align the U.S. with Assad’s enemies.

The U.S., before Obunger’s elevation from community organizer to the White House, aligned itself with the Taliban to oust the Russians – then a world power with which to be reckoned – from the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

The U.S. armed the Muslims. It trained them and it gave them military and financial support.

In return, when the Russians were sent packing, the U.S. proxy Taliban turned on its masters and bit the hands that had fed it while driving Afghanistan back into an Islamic dark ages.

According to a Syrian official (ibid.), the rebel “Al-Nusra Front is an Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist group in Syria.” Taliban. Al Qaeda. The connection is patently obvious. Both are Muslim terrorist groups.

My enemy’s friend is my enemy

A number of Muslim states, including Islamist-leaning Turkey, are encouraging the infidels (EU, U.S.) to attack Syria on their behalf; and if Iran should suffer “collateral damage,” for the Muslims – Saudia, the Gulf Corporation – well, so much the better. Infidels are expendable.

In south Florida:

U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL 27th Congressional District, has been telling the media that she is confident there will be no U.S. “boots on the ground” in Syria. As Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia, there is some hope that her prediction is accurate. But she is, after all, a Republican.

Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-FL 24th Congressional District, apparently is concerned only with her own district’s issues. Her committees all are domestic.

Sen. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, D-FL 23rd Senate District, despite being Jewish and the Democratic party’s chair, remains silent on the middle east and all U.S. foreign intrigue.

Final question: Who used the chemicals? Where’s the proof?

The U.S. intelligence operations are often not – intelligent.

The U.S. has time and time again gathered second hand information from sources that have little, if any, direct knowledge of reality. When it does get information, the information has to be filtered by sundry organizations that pick and choose information that meets the organization’s agenda.

The bottom line for the U.S. is that, despite the fact that chemical weapons have been used – by some group against other groups, the U.S. cannot be certain who is to blame. If it targets Assad – and Obungler claims not to want “regime change” – and it was the insurgents who used the chemicals, the U.S. will be blamed for (a) interfering in Syrian domestic affairs and (b) killing innocents; collateral damage cannot be avoided.

No matter what Obungler orders, the U.S. will be excoriated by Muslims of all types.

There was, and there remains, value in the Monroe Doctrine.

Blind in one eye

& can’t see out of the other

The fools on the Hill:  IMO – nothing “humble” about it – U.S. politicians (a) are blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other, (b) are Polyannas, (c) they are just plain “stoo-pid,” or (d) “all of the above.”

SYRIA: The fools inside the beltway want to supply arms, albeit “small” arms, to the Syrian “rebels.”

The U.S. has no business meddling in Syria’s internal affairs; its civil war. Yes, I know Iran is sending troops and I know terrorists organizations (Hamas and Hezbollah) are sending fighters, and yes, I know Russia is promising, but apparently not yet delivering, arms to the regime.

That STILL does not justify U.S. involvement in Syria.

Does anyone remember that the U.S. outfitted the Taliban in Afghanistan? Does anyone remember what the Taliban did with the U.S.-provided weapons when the Taliban kicked the Russians out? If you forgot or never cared to know, the Taliban first turned the weapons on the Afghans and then, when the U.S. sent in troops to protect the non-Taliban Afghans, the weapons were turned on U.S. boys who really had no business in Afghanistan.

The U.S. (mostly) removed Sadam Hussein from power in Iraq. To what end? So that Iraqis, with a little help from there Iranian and Islamist friends, could plant IEDs along the roadways and so that Iraqi police and army “trainees” could murder U.S. soldiers. Does anyone really think Syria would be different? The idea that “cutting the head off the snake” would resolve all the problems obviously is a bad idea. Ben Laden is gone, but Al-Qaida carries on with renewed vigor.

U.S. politicians are living in La-La land if they think removing a strong leader – a dictator such as Syria’s Bashar Hafez al-Assad, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, or Libya’s Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi - will suddenly turn the people they controlled into Friends of America? It failed to work in North Africa. It failed to work in Iraq. It failed to work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America has no friends in Egypt. Saudia is a false friend at best. “Palestine” – both Hamas’ “Palestine” and Hezbollah’s “Palestine” both consider the U.S. an enemy, yet Washington’s fools, of both parties, continue to support it at the expense of its lone ally in the area.

IRAN just held a free and democratic election for a new Iranian president. The winner was, according to many western sources a “moderate,” cleric Hasan Rowhani.

Unlike the U.S., Iranian politicians are elected by direct vote, in theory a true democracy.

However, in Iran “democracy” is tempered, and tampered with, by the ayatollahs and, in the end, the Shi’ite Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Iran's “supreme ruler.” Rowhani, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad before him, is only a mouthpiece for Khamenei, so no matter how “moderate” the liberal press declares Rowhani to be, he is only as “moderate” as the Shi’ite’s grand ayatollah.

Iran’s rush to nuclear weapons will go on full speed ahead, even under the “moderate” who "just happens" to be Iran’s top nuclear negotiator.

The only way Iran will see political change is if the general populace throws out the ayatollahs from political power. Given the ayatollahs control of the military, a regime change is unlikely sans outside interference.

Like Syria, Iran is – not yet – the U.S.’ problem, although it is becoming an increasing danger to the U.S.’ only reliable ally in the region. Greece, Turkey, and Jordan all have their own problems to manage, and Lebanon has been Syrian controlled for decades and is a non-state of no consequence. Egypt and North Africa are in turmoil and Iraq, for all practical purposes, is in Iran’s political pocket.

AND THEN THERE’S RUSSIA that wants to be seen as a major player, a superpower returning as the phoenix rising from the ashes. As before, for every move the fools of the Kremlin make, the fools in Washington think they must make a counter-move. Russia is supporting Assad therefore the fools along the Potomac feel they must support the anti-Assad forces. With support from both parties - at last, cross aisle cooperation, even if it IS detrimental to the nation in the long term, is in play – the politicians from Chelm are preparing to arm our future enemies to fight a war in which the U.S. has no political, geographical, financial, or other interests. The U.S. “must” counter the Russians in a game of checkers . . . forgetting that in the end the game will be Chinese checkers and both Russia and the U.S. will lose.