Skip to comments.Obama's Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel
Posted on 09/07/2013 5:03:01 PM PDT by Hotlanta Mike
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obamas much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that its not about Syria at all. Its about Iranand Israel. And it has been from the start.
By the start, I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Irans. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obamas Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenation.com ...
I think it is also about doing the dirty for the House of Saud.
So the Nation thinks obama is going help Iran destroy Israel?
That makes more sense than him helping Israel, obama loathes Israel.
The war is about the LNG pipleine from Qatar to the Med. The Saudi’s want this too. The Russians, and by proxy Assad, do not.
If the pipeline goes in, the Russains lose influence on Western Europe via energy.
The Qataris’ plan goes forward, and the Shiite’s win. Saudi plan goes forward the Sunni’s win.
Follow the money.
His Arrogance is doing exactly what he is told .... by the Saudis and the rest of the Arab oil barons.
If it was about a strike against Iran’s nuclear
and military complex, a massive strike, I would have
no problem with it. I’ts this piddling halfass bullcrap
that is going to get us in a bad place.
It has always been more about Iran and regime change than poison gas. Assad in return for aid has allowed Iran to locate their short range ballistic missiles if forward Syrian positions. As long as they are in place, Israel cannot attack Iran’s nuclear facilities with impunity. If Assad is overthrown, the new rulers of Syria will throw out the Iranians. This cannot be done with a “limited strike”. It will be a horrendous conflict with boots and American blood on the ground.
I don’t trust this article. He’s spewing Obie’s dreams regarding Khoemeni and Putin’s pronouncements. All bunk, imho.
There are no lasting loyalties in the middle east. It’s tribe against tribe, family against family, minute by minute.
There is only one thing to do: do whatever is best for Israel.
Anybody who believes Obama is looking out for Israel is an idiot anyway.
I am doubtful of the article as well or that Obama is that interested in helping Israel. But regardless the collection of rebels that can’t even win against Assad don’t have a chance in hell of overthrowing an Iranian regime.
what specifically is the difference in the mullahs in charge of Iran and Valerie Jarrett’s Iranian roots ?
therein is the biscuit
I’m just not following the logic of this story. Doesn’t make sense to me.
When Iran announces it has nuclear weapons, they will have several.
I’m not seeing how taking Syria will take out or deter Iran’s nuke progress.
Western Europe desperately wants to get a LNG pipeline around Russian control to keep the lucrative energy profits in the West.
They would love a war between Russia and the US where they profit in multiple ways and the US gets death and debt as reward for being suckers.
It isn’t about being Iranian, it’s about being an obscenely wealthy and powerful Iranian.
It WON’T. That is liberal logic for you.
That makes more sense than anything else.
No its about Saudis and Iranians.
the Iranian angle ain’t been ‘splained well yet
This is way, way above the Anointed One’s pay grade. And intellect. The more convoluted the process, the more potential for the community organizer to screw it up. The only time our Constitution, economy, civil rights and national security is really safe is when this imbecile is playing golf.
No, we do what is best for the US. It would be US blood that is shed in this.
Did not mean to imply that a new Syrian regime would try to overthrow the current Iranian theocracy. However the new Syrian regime would force the Iranians to leave Syria and would prevent them from positioning missiles in Syria. That would be a huge strategic shift. Those Iranian missile batteries in Syria are currently preventing Israel from attacking Iran with impunity. IMHO that is a prime goal of Kerry’s “limited strike” If it were successful it would help Kerry secure the Democratic nomination in 2016.
Article is bs. Syria could be dragged out to the ocean and sunk and meanwhile Iran continues to build nuclear missiles to kill the Great Satan and take over all the gulf oil etc etc If O were willing to eliminate the Iranian danger I’d say yes yes. But to bomb Syria does NOTHING to eliminate the Iranian nukes. Nothing. The article is pure bunk.
Zer0 blew his gift in the lap of the Iranian Green Revolution. B0z0.
Obama has NO interest in toppling Iran. If he had, he would have put his support behind the Green Movement.
Instead, he put his support behind Morsi in Egypt and Al Qaeda in Libya and said nothing about the kids getting murdered in Iran.
Hmm. Articles critical of the proposed Syrian adventure in The Nation, In These Times and Mother Jones. Are we at the “if I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost the nation” inflection point?
Oh, how lucky we will be if you are correct!
The House of Saud turned against Obama when Obama backed Morsi and the MB. Their turn was a slow one however as they were awakened slowly to the danger the MB posed to the Kingdom.
O'Bomber's legacy will be:
Solutions in search of a problem.
It’s also BS that Obama actually thought this through. In reality, he avoids the complexities of leadership at every opportunity. The bottom line here is that if some MSM reporter hadn’t reminded the world of Obama’s year-old ‘red line’ comment after this most recent gas attack, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
If it’s really about Iran then why not just...go after Iran?
“No its about Saudis and Iranians.”
Bingo! This is about the Caliphate and who is going to control it.
Question everyone should be asking is, “where did Obama come from and who is responsible for his rise?
This is not a move to "cripple Iran" -- this is a move to topple the Assad government in favor of a radical Muslim one.
This article reads like propaganda.
Obama has supported Iran’s agenda every chance he could. Why would he change course now?
Legacy? No...DESTRUCTION of Christians and Jews.
The world is his dominoes and he won't be happy until the entire string has fallen and the planet is in barbaric ruins.
Hmm. Articles critical of the proposed Syrian adventure in The Nation, In These Times and Mother Jones. Are we at the if Ive lost Cronkite, Ive lost the nation inflection point?
The Amateur in the White House...
Is Syria the one big wag the doggie???
Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei: Amnesty ‘Dead’ Until 2017
The article is correct.
With the syrian surrogate gone, Iran becomes much less a factor.
The article includes Israel, but the Gulf States are as or more important. Iran seeks hegemony over all the region. Iran covets Mecca.
To bring stability to the Region, Iran must be neutered.
Who really knows what it is? You have to be dealing with sane people to be able to develop a real perspective.
As far as "amnesty being dead" - the current trend has instituted amnesty without it being an official philosophy - no real difference if we don't protect the borders and refuse to send them back. Delaying the conversation until 2017 will just further entrench the illegals and their supporters and not have any beneficial affect on Americans.
Obama Blocked Israeli Strike on Iran
Frontpage Mag | Sept 7, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield
Posted on 09/07/2013 7:22:33 PM PDT by Innovative
Robert Dreyfuss is a LaRoucher:
Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance investigative journalist whose work has appeared in The Nation, Rolling Stone, The Diplomat, Mother Jones, The American Prospect, and other progressive publications. His work also appears on line at TomPaine.com. Dreyfuss received a bachelor’s degree from Columbia University. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dreyfuss was Middle East Intelligence director of the Executive Intelligence Review, the flagship journal of the Lyndon LaRouche movement. His 1981 book, Hostage to Khomeini, was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche. In the book Robert Dreyfuss provides a detailed explanation of why the Carter administration was fooled into supporting the Khomeini revolutionaries but Khomeini backstabbed the US after the Shah was brought to the US for treatment. The book discusses how various officials in the Carter administration believed that an Islamic Iran could export the Islamic revolution to the Soviet Muslims and cause a break-up of the Soviet Union.This did indeed happen with a rise in an Islamic insurgency inside the Soviet Union which led to its breakup. The chechans Islamists continue to create major havoc for the Russians. Robert Dreyfuss named Cyrus Hashemi as being an CIA and Mossad agent and Cyrus Hashemi sued Robert Dreyfuss and Lyndon Larouche. Victor Ostrovsky in his book revealed that Cyrus Hashemi had indeed been a Mossad asset and had been assassinated by Mossad to shut him up because he was a testifying in a court trial in the US investigating Iran Contra. and it was cowritten with Thierry LeMarc. The book was published by the LaRouche publishing house of the time, New Benjamin Franklin House. In the 1990s Dreyfuss wrote on intelligence issues and foreign affairs, and profiled a number of organizations and public figures, including then governor of Texas, George W. Bush, and senators Trent Lott and John McCain.
BUMP the crazy bio of the author.
If someone could show me that attacking Syria would help keep Iran from getting nukes and protect Israel, I would be all for it. So far I haven’t soon a good case made for it.