The same nausea you’re feeling reading this article is the same nausea Obama could use to get elected.
I don’t trust the Guardian to accurately report on Republican presidential candidates. So this article is probably a poor starting point for discussion.
But if true, there’s a lot of possible unintended consequences.
It sounds good to oppose Iran and weaken an enemy of Israel.
But what if that means supporting an Islamist rebellion that may be even worse, and that may crush christian minorities?
I don’t trust glowing sympathetic press accounts of Arab Spring, Muslim Brotherhood, and FSA.
These were my thoughts exactly. How likely is it that an ultra-left, British news organization would obtain inside information from the Romney camp that domestic media outlets could not? It has the smell of a disinformation campaign to me, and who are more likely to gleefully go along than the Guardian?
The likely sources are the Syrian rebels who are angry that the U.S. hasn't been more forthcoming with heavy weaponry. Officially, Hillary is forking over only “humanitarian aid”, which I suspect is diplomatic code for CIA logistical support and intelligence. The rebels want artillery, heavy machine guns and armor.
Hopefully, Romney will resist the temptation to use this ugly situation as an opportunity to look tough on foreign policy. As Kissinger said of the Iraq and Iran War, it's a shame both sides can't lose. We need to stay the heck out while trying to protect endangered minority communities that stand to suffer still worse oppression should the rebels prevail: e.g. Syrian Christians and obscure Muslim sects like the Druse.