Sunday, June 16, 2013

IRAN TO SEND TROOPS TO SYRIA TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT ASSAD


The "military decision" means that Iran is now "fully committed to preserving Assad's regime," wrote journalist Robert Fisk, citing pro-Iranian sources.

As well as sending Revolutionary Guards, Iran has reportedly proposed to open a "Syrian front" against Israel in the Golan Heights.

The decision was reportedly made before Iran's presidential election, and came as the US approved a move to arm the Syrian opposition.
Did anyone in the White House anticipate Iran's "military decision" before the president announced the plan to send light weapons to the rebels in Syria?  Or is the news from Iran another "Who would ever have expected...?" moment?  Why do we continue to meddle in the affairs of countries in the Middle East despite our miserable series of failures?  Many questions...

8 comments:

  1. Why do our "leaders" insist that leadership means meddling in the affairs of other countries, particularly claiming some good or right or necessity to inflict our way of life on everyone else? Yes, I do actually think a lot about world issues and am not naive about the inter-relationships of the majority of the world's countries and economies. But this insistence that our way is the only way disturbs me and it seems to be asserted most strongly by those who simply cannot see that dictating to others creates nothing but resentment and hatred, the very same people who scream about "liberty" the loudest ... as long as that liberty includes doing things "our way." There is only one logical conclusion to our policing of the world: disaster. Let us send humanitarian aid to the refugees in adjoining countries, help Jordan & Turkey, et al provide for those fleeing war, but NOT send more guns to anyone ever again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We're not even certain who the several groups that number among the rebels are. Al Qaeda may be in the mix. What if Assad falls? Who will be in charge then?

      Delete
    2. Everyone and no one ... regional/tribal factions will "rule" their own small areas and the "civil" war will go on in the most uncivil ways, probably for years while one "strongman" after another attempts to take power promising order but not freedom. And the delusion that "all we need is a strong (read male, dictatorial)leader" will go on. Even in the most democratic countries, that image continues to seduce the populace into a false sense of stability ... because real democracy is messy and requires endless patience and a fundamental respect for all people, not just the ones loud/rude enough to dominate both the resources and the conversation (which is inefficient and mortally irritating to people who "solve" problems with guns). I have zero expectation of a peaceful solution in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East, just pray for the lowest death toll possible and for us, just once, to stay out of it except for food & medical aid.

      Delete
    3. When will we accept that we can't "fix" what wrong in every country in the Middle East? We can't fix our own country. Whence cometh the hubris?

      Delete
  2. Can you say q-u-a-g-m-i-r-e? Can you say V-i-e-t-n-a-m? Can you say s-t-u-p-i-d-i-t-y?

    Plus ca change, plus c'est le same damned thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russ, I shudder to think of the catastrophic possibilities in taking sides in Syria. How did Obama allow himself to be persuaded? Yes, I know - the chemical weapons line in the sand. Will we all feel secure if the rebels get control of the weapons?

      Delete
  3. I really hope the New Guy (the "moderate" just elected President in Iran---name escapes me) is able to rescind this order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JCF, so do I. I hope Obama rescinds his order to arm the rebels, too.

      Delete

Anonymous commenters, please sign a name, any name, to distinguish one anonymous commenter from another. Thank you.