A WP editorial made me rethink more regarding what our plan regarding Iran is. I normally dislike much of what Rubin says, but she is making quite a bit of sense here. On the one hand, Syria while not resource important to us is just as in need of assistance as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, and in the latter's case we've gone so far as to virtually ensure the rebels win.
Assad has already made the concession that he will allow a multiparty legislature to form, but that is most likely a stalling tactic until he can regain control. A Syria run jointly by Sunnis and Shias is not impossible, and would certainly help Israel deal with Iran's influence and threatening posture.
Iran is recklessly pushing as hard as it can towards nuclear weapons, and has never ceased to loudly state just what it intends to do with such weapons. Is it possible they are bluffing, yes. But it's also possible they are deadly serious, and that has to be how we treat them.
So what aid can we render Syria? We've spent so much money on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more recently we spent some more on Libya. What could we do to ensure Syria is able to depose of Assad, as part of a broader response to this new threat from Iran? We can't afford an invasion, unless we have the overwhelming support of the UN, and we are merely a part of a multinational task force. Sanctions are not working, so what then?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the US wants to touch Syria with a ten foot pole. Egypt was highly controversial in the Arab world. Many of our "friends" over there, like Saudi Arabia, were outraged by how we treated Mubarak. If we're willing to throw a multi-decade friendship under the bus for a heat of the moment rebellion, what security do they have against us tossing them overboard as well?
Libya was easy because most of Libya's friends are sub-Saharan, so we don't really give a damn whether they like us or not. None of them are important enough to matter, geopolitically.
But Syria is smack dab in the middle of a lot of regional politics. How does this affect a fragile situation in Lebanon? What would Israel do, and how does this affect our theoretical peace negotiations with them and Palestine? What does Saudi Arabia, our most powerful ally in the region, think about handing over a fair bit of power to Shiites in a predominantly Sunni state, right on the heels of our handing over power to Shiites in Iraq?
It's a hornet's nest over there right now, and I'm not entirely sure that our best bet isn't to stay out of it entirely, and let regional powers deal with it. Most of them will be content to just let whatever happen, but we can't have a hand in every problem over there, especially not the ones with repercussions as potentially powerful as this one.
Iran is probably going to get the bomb at some point. I don't see how we can stop it forever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't think the calculus on Iran has changed all that much since this podcast more than a year ago.
Especially considering the well-put point at 20 minutes, that not a lot of people outside of Western Europe, Israel, and the US seem to care if Iran gets nuclear weapons or not, internationally, I can't see the US managing to bargain for much more than more ineffective sanctions. With Obama at the table, who knows how much he may give up to get even that.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I don't think the calculus on Iran has changed all that much since this podcast more than a year ago.
Especially considering the well-put point at 20 minutes, that not a lot of people outside of Western Europe, Israel, and the US seem to care if Iran gets nuclear weapons or not, internationally, I can't see the US managing to bargain for much more than more ineffective sanctions. With Obama at the table, who knows how much he may give up to get even that.
Well, he's got a couple trillion more to piss away now. It might all already be earmarked for next month's welfare checks though.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Rubin is a hardcore Zionist and only has interest in that region because of her ethnic and religious allegiance to Israel. She is a very biased source to get information about the middle east unless you share her political and ethno-religious orientation. Her concern is that a nuclear armed Iran would act with more confidence in the backing of entities which Israel considers hostile. It is not America's interest she has at heart but that of another nation which perpetually manipulates and uses the U.S in its colonial and apartheid-esque brutalization of Arab natives.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Derp.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not objective like you, right Sa'eed? She's got an agenda.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
My lack of objectivity, if any, is only prompted by the partiality of the likes of Rubin and their quest to hijack American might for their Zionist goals. It is curious that the Post hires a right-wing hardcore Zionist to dispense propaganda about the Middle East which is tirelessly supportive of Israel and then disguises Rubin as merely a "conservative" voice when her most passionate cause and the one she devotes the most energy to is ideologically championing an increasingly isolated foreign country. Where's the Palestinian or anti-Zionist voice to create a balance? Let us not notice that the Post being dominated by Zionist Jews like Fred Hiatt distorts the paper's coverage of the Mideast. No no, it is those who notice this distortion that have the real agenda.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'If any', ha!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No no, it is those who notice this distortion that have the real agenda
You both have an agenda; rubin is just a boring run-of-the-mill stupidly pro-israel neocon (one of those that was quick to blame Utoya on Islamic terrorism, natch), and you are a boring antisemitic fanatic that sees Zionist/Feminist/Homosexual/Insertwhatevertheheckeverhere plots wherever you look and back this up with rigidly bad 'facts.'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sa'eed: Ignoring how you chose to just discuss Rubin, could perhaps explain how it is better for Syria to have an evil minority Shiite dictatorship beholden to Iran?
TIA.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... an evil minority Shiite dictatorship ...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)