Syria: the case for action

[graphei]

My Persian is terribly rusty and I was only able to pick out a few words of his speech. Going off the translated summary, I'd say Rafsanjani is right. Either way, Syria loses. Anyone who gets involved loses, too. This brings me to my next point.

davidfpo, I was poking around your link's website and I found THIS little gem.

Here's the title to whet your attentions: When A Top Diplomat Says Syria’s “Al Qa’eda” Insurgency is “Under Command of Saudi Prince Bandar”

I know what you're all thinking: this is nothing new from Tehran. We're all certainly familiar with their tricks.

Here's the burn. He's not a hardliner, nor has he ever been really affiliated with the more- shall we say vitriolic? parties in Tehran. He's long been advocating direct talks with us. Not that the SL or President at the time would indulge in them.

But why, why would Saudi Arabia be doing this? Well, Mr Lucas found an interesting bit here:

The new plan drawn up by Bandar and the secret service of Saudi Arabia aims to create a so-called “Sunni Hezbollah” as counterbalance to the Lebanese Hezbollah movement. The main goal of a meeting that Bandar held with [Lebanese political figures] Samir Geagea, Walid Jumblatt, and Saad Hariri was to form military resistance forces against the Lebanese Hezbollah.

And we all know who backs Hezbollah. Hezbollah grew directly out of the policy of 'Export of Revolution' that has never officially ended. Given Tehran's growing influence and history of meddling, Iran has long been a problem spot for many of their Sunni neighbors.

Since Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Wahhabism, they view themselves as the keepers of Sunni orthodoxy. Shi'a are an abomination to be wiped from the Earth. They are lower than dhimmi and even kufir. Gee, if only there was a group that thought the same way? Oh snapums. There is! And it was founded by a Saudi, too! How convenient.

I've said this before. Tehran is bat-#### crazy. No doubt about that, but 15 of the 19 Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

We need to be very careful. What a perfect win for them. They can piss off Tehran and watch a bunch of Americans get killed in the process.

[ganulv]

Tehran is bat-#### crazy.

But somewhat predictable, right?

[graphei]

But somewhat predictable, right?

They are nothing if not consistent. Sing songs about destroying Zionists, paint pictures with Statue of Liberty's crown made of bombs, yell about colonialism and globalization.

Personally, I want to see how the rhetoric is going to change now that Rouhani is in office. It won't change much of what is coming out of Fars, but he's expected to set a different tenor than Ahmadinejad. Plus, many Iranians want more favorable relations with the West. Many of them are tired of the hardline rhetoric.

The Saudis, however, have always kept quiet. That's why I worry about them.

[Tukhachevskii]

That's why I worry about them.

...we need to worry about all those ells in your hovercraft.

هاورکرافت من پر مارماهى است

Sorry, I know, serious topic, but just couldn't help it

[davidbfpo]

In one screen:

The US, Britain and France are in broad agreement that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in an attack near Damascus last month. Syria has blamed rebels for the attack, and Russia says it has 'a good degree of confidence' that it was an 'opposition provocation' – although neither Moscow nor Damascus have publicly produced any evidence to support their claims. This is how the western countries' separate intelligence reports compare:

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/gra...red?CMP=twt_gu

A properly translated Der Spiegel story on German intelligence:http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-920123.html

[Bill Moore]

A lot of people are suspicious of our intelligence on Syria's use of chemical weapons after the fiasco in Iraq based largely on the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq's WMD program. That suspicion is healthy, but not always reasonable.

I agree with those that think we have great capacity for stupidity, but there is a limit to that stupidity and I don't think we would risk making the same mistake twice on the world stage, so I suspect the intelligence that Assad's forces employed the nerve gas is probably pretty solid. Furthermore, SECSTATE Kerry made some good arguments IMO during the Congressional hearings today in the hour or so of the hearings I caught tonight on CSPAN. Most interestingly in my view is he said Iran and Russia also claimed to oppose the use of chemical weapons, which puts them in a difficult position to retaliate if we release intelligence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Assad's forces conducted the attack. They can still act if they choose, but certainly puts them in a bad light internationally if they do, so how much do they really want to sacrifice for Assad? If they want influence in Syria when this is over, they probably need to find another champion other than Assad. It is still a gamble, but not an unreasonable one. Still a lot of questions on the day(s) after, but in reality no one can answer those questions with anything more than an educated guess. Is intervening the right thing to do? Probably. Is a limited strike the right way? Unknown.

[wm]

I'm not sure of the value add by any US strike as a supposed punishment of the Assad regime.

This Article provides a commentary on the apparent results of prior attempts to "punish" bad actors in the region.

I cannot comment on the source, but I will note that writers discussing punishment say that punishment has the following goals--deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reparation, and retribution/revenge. I'm not sure how launching a number of TLAMs at Syria meets any of them.