Friday, November 22, 2013

Blocking action on Syria makes an attack on Iran more attractive

Something to consider.............

"Maybe an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will not inevitably involve the United States, but maybe it will — and maybe it should"

Uberzionist Dennis Ross. An older article, but, one that seems very relevant at this time

The opponents of congressional authorization for military strikes against Syria are focused on one set of concerns: the belief that the costs of action are simply too high and uncertain. Syria for them is a civil war, with few apparent good guys and far too many bad guys. The use of chemical weapons is, in their eyes, terrible, but ultimately it is not our problem — unless, of course, we make it our problem by reacting militarily. If we do, they see a slippery slope in which the initial use of force will inevitably suck us into a conflict that we cannot win. Coming on the heels of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which cost us so much in blood and treasure, the U.S. public, as polls show, is both weary and wary of any further involvement in Middle East conflicts.
The wariness is understandable, but it does not make the cost of inaction any lower. Opponents in Congress, who can be found in both parties, seem to feel that if we simply don’t act, there will be no cost for us. President Obama and Secretary Kerry have pointed out that there will be a great cost to international norms that prohibit the use of terror weapons such as chemical weapons. And surely they are right that if Bashar al-Assad can gas his own people and elicit only harsh words but no punitive action, he will use the weapons again. The price in Syria and the potential for spillover in the region are certain to be high. Additionally, other rogue actors may also draw the conclusion that chemical weapons are not only usable but that there are no circumstances, no outrages, no genocidal actions that would trigger a meaningful reaction from the so-called civilized world.

Still, for the opponents of authorization, these arguments are portrayed as abstractions. Only threats that are immediate and directly affect us should produce U.S. military strikes. Leaving aside the argument that when the threats become immediate, we will be far more likely to have to use our military in a bigger way and under worse conditions, there is another argument to consider: should opponents block authorization and should the president then feel he cannot employ military strikes against Syria, this will almost certainly guarantee that there will be no diplomatic outcome to our conflict with Iran over its nuclear weapons.
I say this for two reasons. First, Iran’s President Rouhani, who continues to send signals that he wants to make a deal on the nuclear program, will inevitably be weakened once it becomes clear that the U.S. cannot use force against Syria. At that point, paradoxically, the hard-liners in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and around the Supreme Leader will be able to claim that there is only an economic cost to pursuing nuclear weapons but no military danger. Their argument will be: Once Iran has nuclear weapons, it will build its leverage in the region; its deterrent will be enhanced; and, most importantly, the rest of the world will see that sanctions have failed, and that it is time to come to terms with Iran.
  Under those circumstances, the sanctions will wither. What will Rouhani argue? That the risk is too high? That the economic costs could threaten regime stability? Today, those arguments may have some effect on the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei precisely because there is also the threat that all U.S. options are on the table and the president has said he will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Should he be blocked from using force against Syria, it will be clear that all options are not on the table and that regardless of what we say, we are prepared to live with an Iran that has nuclear arms.
(Part 1) -Israel, however, is not prepared to accept such an eventuality, and that is the second reason that not authorizing strikes against Syria will likely result in the use of force against Iran. Indeed, Israel will feel that it has no reason to wait, no reason to give diplomacy a chance and no reason to believe that the United States will take care of the problem.  (Part 2) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees Iran with nuclear weapons as an existential threat and, in his eyes, he must not allow there to be a second Holocaust against the Jewish people. As long as he believes that President Obama is determined to deal with the Iranian threat, he can justify deferring to us. That will soon end if opponents get their way on Syria.
 The second part of the above paragraph is utter baloney! This is the manipulation always used. The guilt. The perception management that has long enabled Israel to run amok in the Middle East. It is tired  over used propaganda. In order to form a nation. Israel. The zionists betrayed their own. Holocausts of any sort do not concern the Israeli elite classes. That much is clear. Any attack perpetrated by Israel has always been about two things. Power and Control.  This is the case today with Iran. Iran has no nuclear weapons. Iran has been inspected every which way. It is Israel that has an abundance of nuclear weapons. It is Israel that has chemical weapons. It is Israel that uses those chemical weapons in a horrific manner against humans in the region. Israel has no problem with holocausts.

Dennis Ross continues..........
Ironically, if these opponent succeed, they may prevent a conflict that President Obama has been determined to keep limited and has the means to do so. After all, even after Israel acted militarily to enforce its red line and prevent Syria’s transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad, Iran and Hezbollah have been careful to avoid responding. They have little interest in provoking Israeli attacks that would weaken Syrian forces and make them vulnerable to the opposition.
 For all the tough talk about what would happen if the United States struck targets in Syria, the Syrian and Iranian interest in an escalation with the United States is also limited. Can the same be said if Israel feels that it has no choice but to attack the Iranian nuclear infrastructure? Maybe the Iranians will seek to keep that conflict limited; maybe they won’t. Maybe an Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear program will not inevitably involve the United States, but maybe it will — and maybe it should.
If nothing else, it is time to ask the opponents of authorization of strikes in Syria if they are comfortable with a position that is very likely to rule out any diplomatic outcome on the Iranian nuclear program. Even in their eyes, the costs of inaction may then not appear so low.


  1. I was going through book marks and lo and behold, I had this one marked to use and never did. Or at least not that I can recall
    It seems the right time to post this piece by Dennis Ross
    The way Israel's government has been acting as of late....
    Leaves on wondering if they would go it along against Iran, knowing dam well the US will go along with it

    The leadership of both these nations -US/Israel - are insane psychopaths

    1. Hi Pen,
      The second part of the above paragraph is utter baloney!

      Every paragraph from Ross is baloney. I don't have time to take it apart sentence by sentence but notice that Russia is not mentioned at all. It is telling. It is Russia's threat of military retaliation that has stopped Obama from unleashing the US military on Syria. Syria is now under Russia's nuclear umbrella.

      The last time israel attacked Syria (the latest 'attack' on Latakia didn't happen) it lost one of their F16's into the Mediterranean. Then Turkey lost an F16 that strayed just one kilometre into Syria territory. Syria also sank an israeli submarine a few months back. Then there was the shooting down of those two ballistic missiles the US fired at Syria from the Mediterranean.

      Neither the US nor israel are going to launch their military forces against Syria because they now know beyond question that Syria and Russia will give them a very bloody nose. Neither the US nor israel can afford the loss of face and the attendant loss of the perception of dominant force.

      Israel is, of course, extremely vulnerable to any retaliatory strikes to it's territory if it attacks either Syria or Iran. So israel is not going to participate in any attack on Iran, never mind initiate it.

      The immediate issue for the US regarding Iran is control of it's oil sales not nuclear processing. Any attack on Iran will be directed at it's oil infrastructure as much as their nuclear facilities.

      If Iran and the US come to any accommodation it will be over Iran returning to selling its oil in US dollars. The sanctions have had the effect of limiting the amount of Iranian oil sold to Europe and elsewhere and so increasing demand for Saudi oil which is sold in $US. This, of course, increases demand for US dollars which is very important to maintaining US military dominance as it sources much of its military materiel from around the globe.

    2. Hey James

      I do not think that the NATO nutters will attack Syria
      It seems the agenda is to grind them down...
      "So israel is not going to participate in any attack on Iran, never mind initiate it."

      A change of heart?
      I entertained the possibility because Israel seems to be setting itself on a path to it's own destruction...
      The seem to have a big martydom syndrome- or a victim think that they perpetuate in Israel.

      As for Iranian oil sales... right now I am leaning towards thinking the US prefers the oil out of the market.
      As does Saudi Arabia. The extra cash enables them to prime the war machine engine

      And then the benefit to the US "This, of course, increases demand for US dollars which is very important to maintaining US military dominance as it sources much of its military materiel from around the globe"

      What do you think that the US may demand of Iran? sell the oil in US dollars?
      you have my curiosity piqued, james
      dish when you can, please

    3. Israel is slowly self destructing, I agree, and ahs been doing so ever since Hezbollah defeated them in 2006. But I don't think the bankers are ready to sacrifice israel in the service of world dominion yet (like they sacrificed jews during WW11 to gain dominion over Palestine).

      The extra money for the Saudis is a benefit for sure but Iran is selling plenty of oil to China and none of it in $US. The US would like Iranian oil sold in $US, of course, and will ask for it in private sessions. It would also cause a rift between Iran with Russia and China but I doubt the Iranians will agree to it. Which all means we won't hear a thing about it. But it is my estimate that that is what the US is angling for and threatening chaos for Iran of one sort or another if they don't get it..

      Control of Iran's (and Russia's) oil is crucial to controlling the currency (or currencies) of the world which, in turn, is crucial to world dominion, the ultimate prize. That prize is slipping through the bankers' fingers, though.

  2. 'Mother Agnes-Mariam is likely to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize next year.

    Mother Agnes is currently touring the U.S. and Canada to inform people about the reality in Syria and the need to stop foreign support and financing of terrorism. Her message is non-sectarian, promoting the values of peace, love and reconciliation.'

    canadas corrupt regime is financing terrorism...will they meet with her?

    1. If the corrupt regime in Canada meets mother Agnes, I will be shocked.
      Canada did not allow George Galloway into the country because he 'supports terror'

      Our government is wacked out christian zionists and obeys the lobby

  3. 'The leadership of both these nations -US/Israel - are insane psychopath'

    either that or theyre very naughty boys!

  4. The entire article is baloney. First off, Bashar Al Assad did not use chemical weapons. The rebels used the chemical weapons in an attempt to force the U.S. to honor it's "red line", which from the beginning was an invitation for the rebels to use the chemical weapons to allow the U.S. to have a reason to justify their intervention.
    Anyone with half a brain would realize that if Assad was into using chemical weapons, he wouldn't have given them all up so incredibly quickly.
    Doesn't anyone comment on the fact that Syria has not only agreed to eliminate all their chemical weapons, under the U.N.'s terms…BUT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT!!. Come on, Syria has just given up ALL THEIR CHEMICAL WEAPONS, and their capacity to make them. What does that tell us? Yet nobody will even acknowledge it, aside from saying that a military strike would have been better, and nobody seemed to happy about eliminating such a big arsenal. It just shows that the US never cared a bit about chemical weapons, or their use.

    1. Hi Richard Lefew:

      Obviously the Syrian government did not use chems
      It is well documented here that the mercs used them.
      -Perhaps you are a newcomer? - I don't know?
      *With the help of Saudi Arabia and Israel to push the US into action
      I have numerous posts on the wonderful cooperation of the Syrian government in giving up the chems

      the value in the article is that it demonstrates the zionist agenda, very clearly.

      Lie, manipulate and if they have to go it alone they will knowing the US will go along.

    2. "Every paragraph is baloney."

      Wrong. "Every sentence is baloney."

      This is all PR positioning. Israel can't attack, and won't. The Saudis are just a joke for anything other than money. The Zionist crowd is unhappy, but that's life. The Muslim Brotherhood is unhappy, too. So what? It's a big world, and they have to live with things like the Russians, Chinese, or Egyptian military. The "factory of the world" is China. They will be throwing their weight around more and more.


    3. The "factory of the world" is China. They will be throwing their weight around more and more

      True. China Announces That It Is Going To Stop Stockpiling U.S. Dollars

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. The Israeli Nuclear Arms Link to the JFK Assassination

    "For ten years Israeli propagandists called Final Judgment author Michael Collins Piper a "liar" and an "anti-Semite" for charging that Israeli intelligence played a role in the JFK assassination conspiracy because of JFK's bitter secret conflict with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion over Israel's efforts to build nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Certain self-styled "JFK assassination researchers" scoffed at Piper and refused to address the thesis of his book.

    "However, on July 25, 2004, many of Piper's critics were red-faced and silent when Israel's respected Jerusalem Post carried a story headlined: "Vanunu: Israel behind JFK Assassination." The newspaper reported that famed Jewish-born nuclear physicist, Dr. Mordechai Vanunu, recently released after spending 18 years in prison for exposing Israel's covert atomic weapons program, had charged that supporters of Israel's drive for nuclear weapons were involved in the JFK assassination precisely because of JFK's interference with their ambitions.

    "The Israeli government dismissed Vanunu's allegations, but what he said received attention in newspapers worldwide, with the notable exception of the United States where one and only one newspaper, mentioned Vanunu's charges and that was American Free Press, the Washington-based weekly that published Final Judgment. However, as widely read Internet writer, Rev. Mark Dankof, put it quite correctly: "The Vanunu-Piper allegations about Israel will not go away
    Silvia Cattori: It seems that in the 1960s, President Kennedy asked that inspections be carried out in Dimona, Israel. Do you see any links between that request and his assassination?

    Mordechai Vanunu: In believe that, at that time, the United States opposed the Israeli nuclear program. Kennedy tried to stop Israel but he was assassinated before he could do it. For me, his assassination had to do with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Israel and in other countries. Those who killed him were in favour of nuclear proliferation. Thanks to his death, proliferation continued. In fact, presidents Johnson and Nixon, who succeeded Kennedy, saw no inconvenience with that. They let Israel act. We can simply see that there was a change in that direction after Kennedy’s assassination…

    1. Arnon Milchan Loved Israel and Kennedy
      Man, I know the Jewish mafia and I know the Irish Catholic mafia. They were united against the Anglo American mafia. Milchan's JFK was a testament against the Anglo American Gays. Kennedy, at that time, was pro Israel. All this tripe about his being anti Israel is hockum. IF he was anti Israel he was against a certain faction of Israeli's who were obedient servants to the crown. The vast majority of liberal jews at that time were with Kennedy against the Anglo American establishment and worked diligently to strengthen an independent Israel that was against the Anglos.

    2. Peter:

      I was going to respond to your other comment
      but it is gone
      Considering the mess my house is in, a lightened mood is great!!!

    3. yeah Pen,
      i needed that laugh