These comments from Marshall Manson indicate, in my opinion, why Israel should stop attacking Syria (and Iran's) proxies and start attacking the folks who are pulling the strings.
The recent attacks on Israel may be coming, ostensibly, from Hezbollah and other anti-Israel factions, but let's not kid ourselves. These attacks are being sponsored by governments of Syria and Iran (the fact that they're using cruise missiles is evidence in support of this), and the threat from these attackers will never be neutralized until Syria, at least, is dealt with.
Engaging in war with anti-Israel groups in Lebanon is a good first step, but it isn't going to solve any problems in the long run. When you're weeding your garden you must always be sure to get all of a weed, even its roots, lest it grow back and become a nuisance again in a few days. In Israel's situation, the roots of their current problems lay in Syria and Iran, not Lebanon.
Israel should declare war on Syria, and America should provide whatever operational and tactical support we can without necessarily comitting troops to the ground. The Bush administration has made a stable and democratic middle east a goal of our foreign policy. Our victories in Afghanistan and Iraq have moved things a long way toward that goal, but as long as Syria and Iran are sponsoring terrorism we will never reach that goal.
The time has come for Syria to take a fall.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
can i ask you? there is a person on gather who has expressed opinions strangely identical to that of nasarella of the hamas, do you think they duplicate the speeches and hand them all over the world, the zionist evil etc.. and since this man lives in america , is this something national security should look into, after all. , someone who says god wants the destruction of the zionist enemy would probobly include buddies too, no?
what do you think?
The US already supplies Israel with the most modern arms available and they have an estimated 200 nukes. Any major conflict in the Middle East will cause a huge world wide economic depression that will aflict the rich and poor alike, even those in Minot.
It highly popular to echo the left's version of the 1953 coup against Mosaddeq in Iran, with at least 6 cites of the incident in The New York Times in as many months. Most of these accounts strip away the historical context.
The fact that British and American oil interests were concerned about the nationalization of their investment cannot be dismissed but then neither can the strategic problem caused by Mosaddeq's failing coalition, an increasingly active Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, and a long border shared with a country ruled by Stalin.
By 1953, Stalin had consolidated Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain; China had fallen to a radical Communist revolution and throughout the world Communists were systematically murdering the democratic resistance to colonialism to co-opt nationalism with communism.
Iran was strategic not only in its capacity to produce oil but in a shared border with the cold war flashes point of Turkey and the Caucuses.
It was an era where coups abounded, especially coups led by communist forces. One is forced to find great irony in the current lament for democratic coups and actions in view of the blackout on information regarding similar Soviet and Chinese efforts. It is if the press has always accepted Communist coups as historically inevitable while resisting similar democratic actions as an impediment to history.
The facts of the Iranian coup are still quite clear. For one, it was a wildly popular coup among Iranians at the time.
As for the Shah, it is laughable to accuse him of oppression in view of the current regime. As a point of fact, it was not the Shah's repression that brought the government down rather it was his reforms.