If the Mullahs Understand, Why Doesn't Obama????

The New York Times is reporting with great fanfare today that Iran sees the uprising in Syria as part of an attempt by foreign powers to break the alliance between Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. Iran has announced that it will not permit this to happen. It is amazing that it took an outright statement from the mullahs to get the Times to report on the obvious linkage of the Syrian fighting to Iran. Today's report is presented as if it is something new -- which it certainly is not.

Anyone who looked with understanding at the Syrian situation has understood from the first day that the Assad regime was challenged by peaceful protests that this presented a great threat to Iranian hopes for hegemony in the Middle East. Syria is the lone Arab state allied with Iran. Syria is the conduit through which Iran funnels billions of dollars of weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The loss of Syria to Iran would be a mortal blow to Iran's regional hopes. That is why it has always been so important to America to support the Syrians who want to replace Assad and his Alawaite regime with a Sunni Muslim leader who has the support of the 75% of the Syrian people who comprise that group.

Think of what the end of Assad would mean for America. Iran would feel much weaker without its Syrian ally and the conduit to Hezbollah. This ought to make the mullahs (whose principal interest is self preservation) more likely to negotiate on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Hezbollah would know that if it fires off its missiles, it will not be likely to get new ones to replace the old ones. That should reduce the threat to Israel. In Lebanon, Syria will no longer be pulling strings to keep Hezbollah in power. The Christian/Sunni majority of Lebanon ought to be able to take back control of the government and force the Hezbollah militia underground. This would be a major blow to terrorism. A Sunni Syrian state not linked to Iran would be more likely to form commercial links with its neighbors Jordan and Turkey. This ought to raise living standards in the whole area and reduce the threat of violence.

So what has president Obama done? Very little is the answer. For over a year, the USA just stood by and did absolutely nothing. Lately, Obama has begun to talk the talk but no walk the walk. Assad must go has been stated by the State department. (An apt name since all they ever seem to do is state things.) Then last week, in another Obama ploy, the press got leaks that indicated that Obama had signed a "secret" document which authorizes the US to give assistance to the rebels, but not to include weapons or ammunition in that help. Who knows if the document even exists. By leaking the existence of a secret document to the press, Obama is still able to deny everything while letting the press tell America that he really is not sitting on the sidelines. Thousands of people are dying each month in Syria, but Obama is still positioning himself in the election campaign.

The fall of Assad is understood in Teheran to be a major blow to Iran and a boon to America. If the Mullahs understand this, why doesn't Obama???