General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIran says it will strike Israel if there's an attack on Syria. Israel says if
it's attacked it will strike back.
Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies on Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”
The warnings came against a backdrop of rising momentum among Western governments for a military intervention in the Syria conflict over what the United States, Britain, France and others have called undeniable evidence that President Bashar al-Assad’s forces used banned chemical weapons on civilians last week, killing hundreds. Mr. Assad has accused the insurgents who are trying to topple him of using such munitions.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/strike-on-syria-would-cause-one-on-israel-iran-declares.html
Lebanon is in a precarious state. Yemen is now a haven for al-qaeda and notoriously unstable. Iraq is on the verge of civil war.
How will a U.S. military intervention impact the region? What will its effect be on U.S. relations with Russia and China. What happens, if in response, Assad reacts by lashing out and and ramping up attacks? What does the U.S. do if Iran attacks Israel? What about if H'zbollah attacks Israel? What if Israel attacks Lebanon or Iran? What if Syrian rebels increase attacks on Alawites and Christians? What if Assad's forces shoot down an American jet? What if it goes region wide?
None of the above are far fetched. All are possible.
Seems like an very big gamble, doesn't it?
http://www.arabnews.com/news/462722
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/08/kant-and-syrias-civil-war
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Honestly, I don't think a region wide conflagration is in the immediate offing. I hope it's not. But what exactly is the point of 2 days of cruise missile strikes? It's not like that will wipe out chemical weapons stock or put a big dent in Assad's military capabilities. There's universal agreement on that.
It looks like nothing so much as showmanship, a gesture.
Hopefully, cooler heads prevail in response to the coming U.S. strikes. That's the best case scenario.
David__77
(23,371 posts)And certainly not before the UN team determines that banned weapons were used, there is a clearly made case in public as to why the Syrian state is responsible, and there is approval for action by the UN security council.
If it means anything, China will not be part of any escalation. Maybe in 20 years they will be more active militarily, but not now on any level.
cali
(114,904 posts)when we attack. not IF but when.
The U.S. couldn't be telegraphing more clearly that it is going to launch attacks this week.
No, China won't be part of any military escalation. That wasn't the question I raised.
David__77
(23,371 posts)I mean, in your opinion, of course.
cali
(114,904 posts)David__77
(23,371 posts)That's fine.
cali
(114,904 posts)and yeah, if you read du at all, it's pretty hard to not know where I stand. I'm hardly shy about my opinions.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)to the US, the President has no constitutional or treaty authority to initiate an attack against anyone without congressional and UN approval. That's the deal we made with ourselves and with the world. Anyone who violates it is a criminal, and so is anyone who aids and abets such an act. Period.
cali
(114,904 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Same question for Egypt.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)There will be no UN vote or approval, because Russia and/or China would veto it. There is no question about that.
There will be an attack, the administration has said so and has given a timeline. Thursday or later, 100 missiles, for 2 or 3 days, depending on what you read last. Happy Labor Day weekend. That is the timeline.
Because, so they say, whoever used chemical weapons to kill a few hundred people will then be so outraged by our killing hundreds more that they won't dare use chemical weapons again.
Because, you know, violence never escalates into greater violence, and whoever killed a few hundred people with gas will be very upset by our killing a few hundred more with bombs, so will stop "misbehaving."
Because that is how you teach children to behave. If they fight and hurt the smaller, bystander child, the "grown ups" step in and smack around another bystander child to teach them who's boss.
And make no mistake about it. We're boss. PNAC said so, and so it is. Welcome to the new american century.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
DFW
(54,356 posts)By the same token, I don't think giving the impression of having our foreign policy being driven by threats from Iran is wise. Iran's statements are often for domestic consumption as much as anything else. I also doubt that Syrian insurgents have access to sophisticated chemical weapons they are testing on themselves.
Just in case it is of interest, I discussed Syria with Obama when I met him last year for an hour, and although it was not for public consumption back then, in the middle of the re-election campaign, I think it's OK to say now what he told me then.
He said that in 2010, if the Russians had been willing to work with us on a solution to the (then already) deteriorating situation in Syria, we might have been able to do something together. The Russians, unwilling to let the regime of their last client state in the region disappear, weren't interested, and so nothing happened. By mid 2012, he said that Syria had deteriorated into a nasty civil war, being fought by multiple factions, all with their own agenda for power, and all of which were hostile to us. Given all that, despite the human tragedy of which he was only too aware, he said that he just didn't see that our intervening would improve anything. Unspoken was the fact that new factors could change that. Of course, the unopposed use of chemical weapons by a hostile neighbor of Israel would be a new factor. Letting Israel dictate our foreign policy isn't any better than letting Iran dictate our foreign policy, in my opinion. However, I am more inclined to believe a quiet message delivered by Israel (and I have no knowledge that there has been one, but it wouldn't surprise me) saying "do something or we will" than public bluster by Iran saying "do nothing, or else."
cali
(114,904 posts)thanks for the insight revealed by your conversation with the President. I find of particular interest your speculation about Israel delivering a quiet message. No, that wouldn't surprise me either. Makes a lot of sense.
Still, I think my larger point is about the precarious and dangerous state of the region and whether strikes from the U.S. could precipitate even worse events. I don't know. Maybe it's all just inevitable. The region is in turmoil, in part because of western and U.S. actions and policies. Who knows what it would look like absent those policies, but we do know what it looks like now.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Do you think it's highly likely the US will launch a strike against Syria? I'm torn on it, given the massive knock-on effect it could cause and the further destabilisation of the region, but when it comes to US foreign policy, I'm not sure much thought goes into consequences...
cali
(114,904 posts)their plans clearly. They're going to launch limited strikes for a period of a couple of days probably commencing on Thursday although possibly it will start a couple of days later than that.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No one can tell you how this will end. Can the President even control our actions completely? Once the attacking and killing starts, his hands-on control will be limited.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's pretty clear that this is more about political posturing on the part of the U.S. than anything else, at least at this point.
The President's hands on control is fairly strongly assured in this particular scenario regarding the intensity and duration of missile strikes.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)At least until something unexpected happens, and such a thing almost certainly will happen.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)If the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its own people, I'd support action from a UN force, but what the US is going to do is so wrong, imo 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)BUt you won't get the UN's imprimatur because Russia and China have Security Council veto.
DFW
(54,356 posts)I can see weapons deliveries to those factions seen (rightly or wrongly) as being least hostile to us if Assad is toppled. I can also see, as a last resort, surgical strikes by cruise missiles and/or warplanes. I also am confident that Obama is highly reluctant to get involved at all, knowing that we could easily end up repeating the last line from "The Seven Samurai."
Assad is either desperate or supremely confident if he used chemical weapons on urban areas, as he knows that chemical weapons were the proverbial line in the sand that would get the west involved on the side his opposition. I still don't see how he thought that using them would be to his advantage. A small representative use of them would never frighten the opposition into submission, and a massive use of them would guarantee large western intervention against him. So, why? Either Assad miscalculated badly, or we're all missing something we don't know about yet.
cali
(114,904 posts)The President may not want to get involved but at this point I think he's pretty much locked himself into limited military strikes of the kind you describe.
I've read a couple of speculative explanations of why Assad may have used chemical weapons:
<snip>
There are a number of theories about why the Syrian government might have chosen to use chemical weapons at this point, just days after United Nations weapons inspectors arrived to investigate earlier allegations of chemical weapons use. One theory proposed by a senior Israeli official is that the attack in the Damascus suburbs may have been a miscalculation: Syria may have been using chemical agents on a smaller scale for some time, and used an unintentionally large amount in last week’s attack. “Maybe they were trying to hit one place or to get one effect and they got a much greater effect than they thought,” said the official.
Another theory, argued by Juan Cole, a professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan, is that a siege mentality may have contributed to the Assad government’s decision to use chemical weapons. Faced with intractable Sunni rebels in the Damascus suburbs, the Alawite-led government may have decided to send them a message that the capital would be defended at all costs. “It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry,” Mr. Cole wrote.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/the-conflict-in-syria.html
My fears about this are rooted in the laws of unintended consequences. Yes, there are powerful people in this country that want a war with Iran, that want war period, for that matter, but I don't believe the President is one of them.
DFW
(54,356 posts)Those "some" were Cheney's pals, and so we invaded Iraq. It was highly profitable for Halliburton and a host of big Republican contributors. Those people don't tend to contribute to Democrats, and so Obama is not beholden to them especially now that he can't run again.
As you indicated, it is the consequences of unintended actions that we have to fear most.
Response to DFW (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #43)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Behind the Aegis
(53,951 posts)If Israel is attacked, or if Iran is attacked, there are some who would see it as good or even useful. The former is more popular here, the latter at right-leaning sites. The fact is attacks on either will just make things much worse, and they are already worse. Of course, those bigots pressing the "Israel is behind this" are the ones who will trumpet the 'goodness' of an attack on Israel. Attacking Syria would be a mistake, and it is very sad because the suffering of the Syrian people is real as is their fear of further chemical attacks. The whole situation is nothing more than a huge pit of quicksand. The best way out, sadly, is just to lay back and do nothing.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I have not seen anyone suggest anything like that.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)jessie04
(1,528 posts)nt
cali
(114,904 posts)dating from our coup against Mosaddegh.
Iraq is a hot fucking mess on the verge of civil war
Yemen is a hot fucking mess
Libya is a hot fucking mess that is in a low level state of civil war
and on and on.
Seriously, this isn't rocket science
jessie04
(1,528 posts)All would be wonderful and happyland in the ME except for the US, right?
Please tell me youre joking.
cali
(114,904 posts)It's not even controversial to say that.
It's beyond pathetic for anyone to deny that U.S. policies and interventions have had a great deal to do with destabilizing the region.
No, of course we can't know what the Middle East would look like sans U.S. interventions, but we can draw some logical conclusions.
In any case, it could hardly look worse. duh.
Do try and educate yourself just a tiny bit. just a little.
1awake
(1,494 posts)And no, the region would not look like wonderful happyland. When a country props up, sabotages, buys off various governments, it tends to not make people very loving towards the government meddling.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Israel might not still be there.
We should have left Iran alone perhaps, but that was 60 years ago now.
Notice their threat is to attack Israel, which has nothing to do with this.
cali
(114,904 posts)that leads so many experts to the conclusion that our unbroken history of interventions in the region have been detrimental.
indepat
(20,899 posts)people on their own soil during the past 60 years or so, either by the military or through some CIA-type action? Also, the approximate number of casualties inflicted, killed and wounded, in other countries during this time-frame? Finally, what, if anything, does this say about our moral authority? 
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)I see it as just opening a big f'n can o' worms. And if there is other stuff that's started because of it, then that's even worse imo. This article has some clear rationale for why our plan won't work (at least as described to us). So if it does nothing but set off world war 3, then oopsie, I guess, right?
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/26/architect_of_syria_war_plan_doubts_surgical_strikes_will_work
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and what is the desire outcome of this 'intervention', who's interests does it serve? Are Syrian dead by Western bombs any less dead than if Assad or the Rebels® killed them? Are they righteous deaths, unfortunate but necessary deaths?
Perhaps all one do is take a look at what we did for Iraq to answer any questions, and sadly it seems our administration and its allies are ready to do it again
ileus
(15,396 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)All triggered by a single guided missile.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How many times have they threatened an attack against Israel.
I'm surprised that giving in to this threat would not be considered "spineless caving."
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You continually overlook the fact that there is no certain proof Assad is the one who used chemical weapons. Hells bells, Assad is the one actor in Syria who had nothing to gain by using such weapons. It's the fricking rebels who want us to intervene!
cali
(114,904 posts)I tend to give his opinion quite a bit of weight.
That still doesn't mean the U.S. should launch strikes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We don't care which side wins (though I would imagine some would demand we support the ouster of a dictator).
Whoever used them has to be stopped.
This idea that the rebels are guilty - is it enough to raise reasonable doubt? Assad may have motives you aren't onto, and the rebels don't have the wherewithal to use them. And what of the State Department's conclusions? Do we have to dismiss them because they come from an "authority," run by "the corporatists?"
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Syria is a sovereign nation, just like ours. Taking it upon ourselves to choose their government is a violation of every international treaty we have ever signed.
As to the rebels' capabilities: Just a couple of weeks ago they launched rocket attacks on Assad's own neighborhood, so they do have the means to also launch a rocket attack with chemical weapons. They have already claimed to have seized such weapons from government stockpiles.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though I remember when the uprisings in Egypt first started, the President was castigated for not going in to help the uprising populace, by the left of DU.
What if the rebels are the ones that used the weapons? If that can be proven, what should we do then?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)There is very little reason to attack Assad's forces, that much is certain!
Syria is not our country. Its civil war is not for the United States to try and settle. Attacking the rebels, if they are the guilty party in this gas attack, would likely not achieve that much. We've been attacking al Qaeda for decades, and have yet to do more than kill a number of their leaders; in fact, we have helped them with their recruiting efforts. The application of military power is simply not the panacea so many people like to think it is.
treestar
(82,383 posts)the use of chemical weapons. Before that, we let them fight their war.
cali
(114,904 posts)he knows that the mayhem that would follow and the likely genocide and ethnic cleansing would be a world class headache for him.
As for the rebel capability, Juan Cole (you know who he is, right) is convinced they don't have the capabilities and he lays out why the Assad regime would have done so.
That aside, any attack by the U.S. is not just wrong, it's perilous as hell. Unintended consequences and all that.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Ummmmm, [font size=4]Fuck YES it matters WHO did it.[/font]
I'm stunned you would make such a statement.
THAT is NUMBER ONE!
All fired up and Ready to RAIN DEATH FROM THE SKIES,
but you are NOT sure "Who did it"...and don't think that matters?????
Do you really not care WHO we bomb as long as somebody gets bombed??!!!
Here is Number TWO.
"Can't get fooled again."
---George Bush
Same Shit
Different Bag
Trust Us.
They are evil dictators who kill their own people !
If you're not FOR the WAR in
[font size=3] Syria,[/font]
you're WITH
[font size=3] Assad
Terror! Terror! Terror!
Evil Dictators! Booga...Booga
USA....USA...USA
[/font]
ElsewheresDaughter
(24,000 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)You can really kiss economic recovery goodbye. We may even see the second decade of the twenty-first century mirror the second decade of the the century that preceded it.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Assuming Russia and China don't send troops and weapons Iran will be on it's knees in a couple weeks.
Both countries would have to mount missile and/or air attacks seeing as how Jordan is in the middle. My bet is that Israel is better prepared for such an attack.
If Jordan gives safe passage to Iran's troop the shwhtf in a big way.....
leveymg
(36,418 posts)us hated and attacked from multiple sides in a complex global religious war fought with no rules and all sort of weapons.
No, thank you!
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)The favored tactic of the militarily disadvantaged are actually more dangerous to us than a rough symmetry of military power that would guarantee mutual deterrence between Israel and Iran.
The weaker Iran becomes relative to Israel the less safe we all become. That is something the Obama Administration does not seem to recognize.
1awake
(1,494 posts)make it more of a sure thing that the US will bomb Syria. The US will not allow a threat to go unchallenged and will move forward unless absolute from can be established that chemicals were not used. Iran may or may not follow through on the threat, but I think the US and Israel are probably wanting Iran to do something. It would be a perfect easy lead into action against Iran.
