Elliott Abrams has an article at the Weekly Standard about whether or not Iran can be allowed to win in Syria. It is something that is necessary reading for anyone who hopes to understand what is going on now in the Middle East.
Abrams correctly points out that Syria is an essential asset to Iran's dreams of being the hegemon of the area. If Assad falls, then Hezbollah will be cut off from its supply lines, the Iraqi Shia may decide that Iran is really not all that powerful, and the Turks and Jordanians will ally with the new Syria to confront Iranian power in the area. In other words, it would be a lose, lose, lose situation for Iran. But it is also true that if Assad falls, it will be a win, win, win for America. We have to consider the weakening of terrorist Hezbollah a good thing. Similarly, a lessening of sectarian violence in Iraq was a major goal of ours for years during the Iraq War. A stronger Turkey and Jordan (not to mention Saudi Arabia) would put American allies in a better position in the region. And, best of all, the weakening of Iran is a marvelous goal towards which to strive.
So why is it that our government seems incapable of grasping the actual reality in the region? Let's start with the personnel involved. John Kerry is a dolt. Remember, he ran to visit Syria as a senator to extol the reformist nature of Assad. For Kerry now to change his view would mean that he would have to admit that four years ago he was wrong. Kerry is not that sort of person. Then there is Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense. Hagel has never met a situation that carried the possibility of conflict which he could accept. His default (and sadly only) position is anti-war. Even though no one advocates America's going to war in Syria, Hagel sees every move towards helping the rebels in that light, so he opposes them. We also have the CIA. That agency has no good intelligence in Syria, so it consistently wants to stay away from the area. Finally, and most important is president Obama. Here is a man who focuses almost exclusively on domestic politics and the standard liberal agenda. The protection of America's position in the world does not even cross his consciousness. Now, he has all the ongoing scandals to deal with as well. Simply put, Obama cannot be bothered to think about Syria. Since no one else in the administration is likely to do so, things will just continue to drift.
For two years, America has had the opportunity to win a great victory with the fall of Assad. Obama blew that chance. Now, even though we have drifted through another two years, the opportunity is again there. Indeed, the opportunity is even greater. If Assad falls, it will be a crushing defeat for Hezbollah which has committed its forces to the fight. If Assad falls, it will also be a crushing defeat for Iran which has put both its forces and its prestige on the line to keep Assad in power. The USA could bring these forces down without ever putting one American into Syria.
Obama and his people are a total disaster.
Abrams correctly points out that Syria is an essential asset to Iran's dreams of being the hegemon of the area. If Assad falls, then Hezbollah will be cut off from its supply lines, the Iraqi Shia may decide that Iran is really not all that powerful, and the Turks and Jordanians will ally with the new Syria to confront Iranian power in the area. In other words, it would be a lose, lose, lose situation for Iran. But it is also true that if Assad falls, it will be a win, win, win for America. We have to consider the weakening of terrorist Hezbollah a good thing. Similarly, a lessening of sectarian violence in Iraq was a major goal of ours for years during the Iraq War. A stronger Turkey and Jordan (not to mention Saudi Arabia) would put American allies in a better position in the region. And, best of all, the weakening of Iran is a marvelous goal towards which to strive.
So why is it that our government seems incapable of grasping the actual reality in the region? Let's start with the personnel involved. John Kerry is a dolt. Remember, he ran to visit Syria as a senator to extol the reformist nature of Assad. For Kerry now to change his view would mean that he would have to admit that four years ago he was wrong. Kerry is not that sort of person. Then there is Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense. Hagel has never met a situation that carried the possibility of conflict which he could accept. His default (and sadly only) position is anti-war. Even though no one advocates America's going to war in Syria, Hagel sees every move towards helping the rebels in that light, so he opposes them. We also have the CIA. That agency has no good intelligence in Syria, so it consistently wants to stay away from the area. Finally, and most important is president Obama. Here is a man who focuses almost exclusively on domestic politics and the standard liberal agenda. The protection of America's position in the world does not even cross his consciousness. Now, he has all the ongoing scandals to deal with as well. Simply put, Obama cannot be bothered to think about Syria. Since no one else in the administration is likely to do so, things will just continue to drift.
For two years, America has had the opportunity to win a great victory with the fall of Assad. Obama blew that chance. Now, even though we have drifted through another two years, the opportunity is again there. Indeed, the opportunity is even greater. If Assad falls, it will be a crushing defeat for Hezbollah which has committed its forces to the fight. If Assad falls, it will also be a crushing defeat for Iran which has put both its forces and its prestige on the line to keep Assad in power. The USA could bring these forces down without ever putting one American into Syria.
Obama and his people are a total disaster.
No comments:
Post a Comment