Get PJ Media on your Apple

Faster, Please!

The Road to Damascus Starts in Tehran

August 25th, 2013 - 12:10 pm

It’s Middle East Groundhog Day all over again.  The discussion of What To Do About Syria is a replay of What To Do About Saddam:  it’s all about the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong way.

When the intel and military “experts” say, as they have been saying for many months, “there is no good outcome in Syria,” they’re talking about that war, the wrong war.

We invaded Iraq in the name of the War Against Terror, which President George W. Bush defined as a war against terrorist organizations and the states that supported them.  That should have made Iran the focus of our strategy, since Tehran was (and still is, now more than ever) the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.  Nothing would have so devastated the jihadis as the fall of the Iranian regime, which–then as now–funded, trained, armed and gave sanctuary to terrorist groups from al-Qaeda and Hezbollah to Islamic Jihad and Hamas.  Unless we defeated Iran, it would not be possible for Iraq to have decent security, no matter how total the defeat of Saddam and the Baathists, and how well-intentioned the successor government.  As you can plainly see.

It’s not as if anyone should be surprised;  before the invasion, both Assad and Khamenei publicly announced that they would wage war against us in Iraq, just as they had in Lebanon a short generation before.  Today they warn us to stay out of Syria, or they will attack us on a global scale.

Here we go.  Again.  We are still the main target of the terror war, of which the leading sponsor is Iran.  The Assad regime in Damascus is a satrapy of Iran, as we are publicly told by both the Syrian insurrectionaries and the Iranian leaders, including The Great Moderate, President Rouhani.  There are thousands of Iranian killers in the front lines, hailing from the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force and from Hezbollah, long the regime’s foreign legion. Iranian advisers tell Assad’s loyalists where and how to attack, and if the Syrians have indeed used chemical weapons, you can be sure the Iranians approved it, and were probably involved in the operations.

So, as in Iraq, if you want to win this battle in the terror war, you must defeat the Iranian regime.  And, as in the early years of this bloody century, you can do it without dropping bombs or sending Americans to fight on the ground, because the overwhelming majority of Iranians want to rid themselves of Khamenei and Rouhani and all the rest of their tyrannical oppressors.  They can do it, with a bit of political, technological and economic support.  They could have done it in 2003, when they were on the verge of declaring a general strike against the regime.  Colin Powell and W abandoned them, and it never happened.  They could have done it in 2009, when millions of them took to the streets in demonstrations larger than those that led to the downfall of the shah.  Hillary Clinton and O abandoned them, and a brutal repression ensued.

A lot of Americans have been sacrificed to our failure of strategic vision, and American soldiers, the best of us, are at risk today in Afghanistan, targets of Iranian-trained Taliban fanatics.  You can be sure that more Americans will be at enhanced risk if we engage in Syria, from soldiers on military bases to civilians in embassies and consulates and resorts and stock exchanges, or even walking through Times Square or waiting at the finish line of a marathon.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Iran has stated publicly that if Obama messes with Syria; there will be consequences. Our problem is that nobody has the balls to attack us ... and that's a big mistake. Iran want to capture Israel and rename it; Iran also want to capture the U.S.A. and rename it. Islam has succeeded in the U.S.A.; hence our reluctance to actually NAME an enemy; writing DOD manuals that describe the enemy as US (anyone that if for individual rights);
the insane protection of all things Islam; Major Hasan's 5 star treatment; and on it goes. We have nurtured the Muslim Brotherhood since the 60's and now they're ready to invite an attack upon the U.S.A. believing that it is their duty, in establishing the Caliphate.
While we sit around discussing the pro's and cons of attacking Syria; there are those who have a very well laid out game plan of attack against the U.S.A. Yet we STILL think that Israel are the only ones that have this dilemma, whereas the truth is that we both have existential threats.
We are facing an evil of large proportions ... and they mean business.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Note that Syria has been in the Eastern orbit for decades, with backing from the USSR, and now Russia. You are also correct that China is aligned with Russia against our meddling in Syria. Syria is the fault line in a mega cycle confrontation between the East and the West. The East will not back down this time without loosing credibility. The West is playing a very dangerous game in Syria. How ironic it would be that we survived the MAD doctrine of the Cold Ware to now enter a world war over Syria because of a Western sponsored false flag attack?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (64)
All Comments   (64)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
I like you and appreciate you...but I think you remain in "de-nile"...We know its Iran!

So, an intelligence analyst can only conclude that the USA policy is to keep the Iranian dictators, that parade as religious, in power at all cost!

How did I conclude that: long ago... (by 1984 I built a 8 gallon/hour ethanol still and was running my car on 160 proof; specifically to keep us out of the war we are in now)

The fair, free market non-monopolistic price of oil would be under $20/bbl.

If Iraq and Iran were producing at full production: an additional +/-10 million barrels per day; the 100/bbl "fixed price" of would be near impossible to maintain. Yes the Iraq war was for only one reason: to keep Iraqi oil off the market.

At $20/bbl the mid-east wars and terror wars end because the funding source: oil, will not pay enough money to keep/finance the wars.


Without monopolistic +/_ $100/bbl oil: mideast wars end. How do we know for a fact the lengths the USA will go to keep the oil off the market; we know with 100% certainty: the gulf oil spill, where 1000/bbl/day no 5000/bbl/day no 10,000/bbl/ no we are catching in ships 30,000/bbl/day and 20,000/bbl/day is going into the gulf; and what were the plans for that one well: well we was gonna cap it and come back one day and take 1,000/bbl/day...and there are 4500 wells in the gulf...They are holding back the oil to maintain +/-$100/bbl oil: to finance the wars!

We need Iran to be a bad guy or we can not sell weapons and keep this phoney war going...same Keystone: another 800,000/bbl/day is downward pressure even on monopoly priced oil.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is not OUR war it is the 1400 YEAR OLD Islamic Sunni Shia war being fought by Iranian and Saudi PROXIES. We have no dog in this fight and BOTH sides are enemies of Western democracies. Lest sit back and watch our enemies kill each other and not be sucked in to an useless conflict by bleeding heart Politically Correct Left wing moonbats.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The idea of iran being the big problem regularly occurred to me during the Bush years. I wondered why people like Wolfowitz were so intent on Saddam and not the Iranian regime. Heck I even remember when Khomeini's grandson was calling for the US to overthrow them during the Iraq war. Back then I was a bit too ready to believe the neo-cons knew something I didn't. In the current situation I think Syria is a trap and that Iran is the real enemy. I'm with you 100%. What I found interesting is that you call for NOT attacking Iran. I tend to be attracted to the idea of knocking out Iran's nuclear program while we are at it, but I notice that neither you, nor your colleague Barry Rubin, support military action against the Iranians. That gives me pause. Doubly so since I see how badly intervention can turn out. But I also note that sometimes neither action nor inaction is the correct response. I also don't think there is time to effectively support freedom in Iran. In Syria I think that the best outcome would be to see Assad forced into an enclave and the Sunnis to govern the rest and hope the Kurds can protect themselves.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Israel does not take orders from Valerie Jarrett - sooner or later they will act. Then it is SHTF for the Middle East. Obama will probably be playing golf or cards when THAT happens.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As long as Valerie Jarrett is puppet master you will get not one scintilla of movement against the Iranians. You know this to be true.

You can get the Puppet in Chief to spend men and money in Syria for one reason and one reason only. It will degrade the U.S. economically, politically and militarily.

We know who the enemy of western civilization is Mr. Ledeen and it is not Iran, it IS Islam. It is about time you decide to join reality.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Iran has stated publicly that if Obama messes with Syria; there will be consequences. Our problem is that nobody has the balls to attack us ... and that's a big mistake. Iran want to capture Israel and rename it; Iran also want to capture the U.S.A. and rename it. Islam has succeeded in the U.S.A.; hence our reluctance to actually NAME an enemy; writing DOD manuals that describe the enemy as US (anyone that if for individual rights);
the insane protection of all things Islam; Major Hasan's 5 star treatment; and on it goes. We have nurtured the Muslim Brotherhood since the 60's and now they're ready to invite an attack upon the U.S.A. believing that it is their duty, in establishing the Caliphate.
While we sit around discussing the pro's and cons of attacking Syria; there are those who have a very well laid out game plan of attack against the U.S.A. Yet we STILL think that Israel are the only ones that have this dilemma, whereas the truth is that we both have existential threats.
We are facing an evil of large proportions ... and they mean business.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Correction; second sentence should read: "Our problem is that we think nobody has the balls to attack us ..."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Why not let them fight it out a little longer? Assad, Iran, Hezbollah on one side and AQ, Salafis jihadis on the other. If they kill each other off, where is the downside?

I vote to not get involved in any of it.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sans a scintilla of a doubt, ALL roads to Islamic terror lead from Iran, albeit Saudi Arabia is a high contender. Not only that, but we all knew that the Islamist-in-Chief had zero interest in quelling Islamic terror, the nanosecond he ignored the uprising in Iran, in 2009.

Moreover, instead of giving Iranians assistance to gain their freedom, he went to Cairo to champion the Brotherhood Mafia! What a ....

In any case, we are on the cusp of WW 3 and the fires set in Syria - with more than a few assists from Barack HUSSEIN Obama...the pyromaniac, who started Benghazigate, may soon come to the rescue! - http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/07/world-war-3s-place-markers-set-up-through-barack-hussein-obamas-mid-east-fires-addendum-to-northeast-intelligence-network-posits-a-direct-nexus-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/

Battening down the hatches!

Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some of us go against Middle East tradition and realize that the enemy of our enemy might also be an enemy. Syria is not the right war and Iran is. Since it appears, as usual, that the US won't do the right thing vs Iran, I guess the consolation prize is that the Iranian satrapy in Syria and perhaps that in Lebanon will be weakened without any meaningful US effort.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All