Posted on 09/28/2004 3:45:52 PM PDT by AWestCoaster
President Bush using coy wording during Bill O'Reilly interview when asked about Iran and nukes:
O’REILLY: Would you allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? PRESIDENT BUSH: We, we are working our hearts out so that they don’t develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them.
O’REILLY: Is it conceivable that you would allow them to develop a nuclear weapon?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Uh, no, we’ve made it clear. Our position is that they won’t have a nuclear weapon.
O’REILLY: Period.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.
To take on Iran it is first necessary to put Syria in check. With diplomatic and military moves by United States and Isreal, that is what is being done.
Most of the headlined diplomatic news out of Syria this week centered on the diplomatic statements of American's chief diplomat, Colin Powell who said, as he should, "The conversations I had with the Syrians this week did not clear up all of the outstanding issues that we have with the Syrians, but I found it to be more positive than the earlier conversations I'd had."
This focus on a pull-quote from Colin Powell obscures the more draconian messages given to Syria by the United States during the talks.
In a more detailed report via the Defense Department's DefenseLINK news services we learn these other details:
The U.S. delegation to Damascus meeting gave the government of President Bashar Asad a very blunt warning about Syria's actions undercutting what the United States is trying to accomplish in Iraq. "It's not just a question of border control," said the senior government official on background. "Institutions within Syria are actively colluding with our enemies in Iraq."
... "Our message to Syria was a warning that this is very serious. Because this means Syria shares responsibility for the killing of Americans and Iraqis, and it has to stop."
.... The official said that pressure on Syria is growing over this situation. "If Americans are dying in Iraq because of Syrian policies, then this is something we are not going to tolerate.
"An Iraq that is successful from our point of view may not be what they want," he continued. "Our job is to convince them that the risk of undermining us is much greater than the opposite." -- DefenseLINK News: Syria-U.S. Relationship Facing 'Major Deterioration'
Subtext: "Seal your borders and stop the flow of terrorists into Iraq or either we or Isreal will deal with you. Maybe both. We don't want to have to say this again."
To underscore this, the news of deeds rather than words in Syria was less diplomatic. Most notable was the killling of the terrorist Izzadin Sheik Khalil with a car bomb in the middle of Damascus. Although officially denied, the consensus of all reports is that Isreali forces set up and carried out the assassination. That this operation happened at the same time Syria was receiving what amounted to an ultimatum from the United States can be seen as coincidental or deliberate. Either way, the message is the same.
When accused of this by Syria, Isreal's response was:
Israel accused Syria yesterday of 'directing terrorism' and said it could face pre-emptive strikes against 'militants' on its territory, but stopped short of saying it killed a Hamas leader in Damascus. -- Israel Threatens Syria With Pre-Emptive Strike
Thus the official Israeli position is "Not only will we strike at terrorists in Syria, we already have."
The US State Department today supported the Israeli position at Spokesman Adam Ereli's Daily Press Briefing . Under repeated questioning Ereli not only refused to condemn the Israeli assassination but would not even acknowledge it. Instead he reiterated the US position as:
I think what we do know is that there are terrorist organizations and terrorist individuals operating out of Syria with the support and connivance of the Government of Syria, and that this is not in the interests of peace... State Department Press Briefing- On Killing of Hamas Leader in Damascus
Thus we see Syria, within a week, presented with both words and deeds that put it on notice that its days of faciliating terrorism are numbered. But although the weapon is being pointed at Syria, the target is Iran.
With the problem of Iran becoming a nuclear power foremost in the minds of all those directing the Terrorist War, it is becoming increasingly evident that, absent some miracle, an air/ground military intervention into Iran will become a necessity in 2005. Having established a pervasive and well-supplied system of bases in Iraq the United States is in a position to launch such an intervention should it become necessary. It is, however, a tactical necessity to take Syria out of the equation before that time.
To heighten the chances a successful engagement in Iran, it becomes essential that Syria be neutralized first. When attacking one enemy you do not want to have another at your back. At the very least it would cause you to split your forces; a military situation to be avoided if at all possible. This goal can be achieved by placing the force at your rear in perpetual check before attacking the primary enemy.
In chess, perpetual check essentially forces a draw in the game. Syria does not lose since it lives to fight another day, but it does not win since it is inhibited from making moves that continue to distract the United States from stabilizing Iraq and being able to bring force to bear on Iran.
In the multi-demensional chessboard of war, it is enough that Syria be effectively immobilized by the threat of attack from Isreal and the United States, as well as international sanctions which have already been put into play through the United Nations.
To achieve such an immobilization it is necessary to convince the Asad government that the game it has been playing is no longer worth the candle. Demonstrations of this are what we saw and heard in Damascus over the past week.
One of the benefits of the military success in Iraq is that no country in the Middle East presently wants to be next on the list, with the possible exception of Iran which is playing the most dangerous game. With Syria in perpetual check, the position of Iran becomes that much less tenable and the possibilty for a non-military settlement of Iran's nuclear weapons program increases.
In the first weeks after 911, a central tenet of the new policy towards terror articulated by President Bush is that nations would be judged on the basis of "whether you are for us or against us," and dealt with accordingly. This week it was encouraging to see events unfold that seemed to underscore this position anew.
This is good news. Iraq won't know peace until Syria and Iran learn the facts of life. A really courageous move in the War on Terror would be to allow Israel to get into the fray. Nothing would communicate U.S. resolve more.
If the goal, at least near term, is to deny Iran the bomb, do we need to invade?
Just a guess mind you, but I suspect we and a few other friendlies, have assets inside Iran and if Iran is as close to the bomb as reports indicate, then those assets along with some well place cruise missles would probably be put into play.
The question remains; what happens afterwards?
It may not be our aim to put a boot on the ground in Iran, if they decide to bankrupt their economy in the fruitless hope of ginning up enough of a defense posture to somehow get us to stay our hand.
Internal destabilization, as you propose, combined with the fear of a U.S. military response may be what tips Iran off the bearing point and into defeat. All without us having to fire a shot :-)
I like your first points--but you pose the biggest question yourself. If we take out Syria first, how do we end the Iranian nuke threat within a couple of months? Unless it could be handled with air strikes targeted on nuke facilities only, leaving the regime change for later--but then we would have to expect an Iranian counterattack. My view is we have a lethal force sitting idle a few hundred miles away: Israel. Let them take Iran while we mop up Syria and prepare for any muslim firestorm that will follow.
I think the only allies we could trust to do what they agreed to do are Australia and Great Britain. I wouldn't call Putin an enemy, but I wouldn't take his word, either. We don't have the time to "trust but verify". Maybe dumping a bunch of money to the students in Iran, air strikes on nuke facilities, and simultaneos takedown of the Syrian regime could get something done.
Or, we could just go to the UN.
If we furnish the Iranians with arms, they'll be able to "take out their own trash!"
Now Syria is another issue.
If we say "BOOO", Syria will probably piss all over herself
However if the Syrians and other assorted felons in Damascus get a bad case of stupidity; then we'll just have to make a pit stop on our way home from Iraq and with Turkey, Jordan and Israel as a backstop; we'll squeeze Syria like a pimple!!!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
They are not sane over there at DU, we all know that. I think its the fungus they eat.
Syria will most likely pull a Lybia to save their own necks and give us Saddam's WMDs once we go after Iran. Hopefully this will all take place between now and election day : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.