Robert Fisk: From Washington this looks like Syria’s ‘Benghazi moment’. But not from here Look east and what does Bashar see? Iran standing with him and Iraq refusing to impose sanctions – The Independent
But look east, and what does Bashar see? Loyal Iran standing with him. Loyal Iraq – Iran’s new best friend in the Arab world – refusing to impose sanctions. And to the west, loyal little Lebanon refusing to impose sanctions. Thus from the border of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, Assad has a straight line of alliances which should prevent, at least, his economic collapse.
The trouble is that the West has been so deluged with stories and lectures and think-tank nonsense about the ghastly Iran and the unfaithful Iraq and the vicious Syria and the frightened Lebanon that it is almost impossible to snap off these delusional pictures and realise that Assad is not alone. That is not to praise Assad or to support his continuation. But it’s real.
The opposition Syrian National Council does not object to Russia coordinating the talks with the Syrian government.
His remarks come in the wake of talks between the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Moscow has offered its assistance to bridge a diplomatic gap between the ruling regime and opposition groups.
But the council representative believes the veto Moscow used against the UN resolution on Syria would hamper its mediating role.
The Syrian National Council, based in Istanbul, positions itself as a government in exile.
The Council runs another oppositional group, the Free Syrian Army, a paramilitary comprised of Syrian Armed Forces defectors.
I have to wonder if the Syrian National Counsel and Free Syrian Army are the instruments through which the US and NATO hope to achieve “regime change” in Syria, ahead of an invasion of Iran.
If in fact this is the case, all the Russian dialogue and mediation in the world will not stop the oncoming bloodshed.
Think of it: if Mossad, the CIA and MI6 are suspected of assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran in veritable exercises of blatant state-sponsored terrorism, couldn’t they be doing this on a much vaster scale inside Syria?
Every time we see horrendous, yet unclear, violence – whether in Egypt, Syria, Iran, Libya, 9/11 in New York or 7 July in London, – two key factors must be unraveled: (1) who benefits? (2) follow the money (who’s paying for the bombs, logistics, bullets, satellite and drone support?)
by Stephen Lendman
Washington’s longstanding policy is regime change in Iran and Syria. At issue is replacing independent regimes with client ones and securing unchallenged control of valued Middle East resources.
On February 4, Russia and China vetoed a largely one-sided anti-Assad resolution. A previous article called him more victim than villain. Yet he’s falsely blamed for months of externally generated violence.
In fact, he confronted a Western-backed armed insurgency replicating the Libya model. By so doing he acted responsibly against a heavily armed insurrection.
Imagine a similar scenario in America. Local police, National Guard forces, and Pentagon troops would confront it violently. Combined, they’d way exceed Assad’s response
The current fate of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, living for decades in inhumane conditions worse that any refugees on earth.
If a major war does erupt, it could send the price of oil skyrocketing and there is the potential that the war could broaden very quickly. Hezbollah has already indicated that it will side with Syria, and there is always the potential that Hamas could as well. Russia and China have both stated that they are completely opposed to military action by the United States against Iran and Syria, and they have even hinted that they would possibly even help defend those countries. As the nations of the world take sides, there is even the potential that we could see World War III develop. Let us hope that it never comes to that, but with the world as unstable as it is right now, you never know what may happen.
Were it not for intransigent Israeli belligerence in the region, this would not be happening.
Just as happened with the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US is now being pushed toward a war of aggression against Iran, a country which has not initiated a war in over 200 years, and definitely not since becoming an Islamic Republic in 1979.
Israel now defines Iran’s civilian nuclear energy program as its new “existential threat” in the region, and it does this with the collective hubris of having nuclear arms, but refusing to sign the NNPT, and allow their nuclear sites to be inspected. Iran, on the other hand, has signed the NNPT, has its nuclear sites inspected, and to date, absolutely no nuclear material is unaccounted for.
Should nuclear-armed Russia and China enter the fray on the side of Iran, we are looking not looking at a regional conflict, but a global conflict.
And I would strongly caution those in the bowels of power in Tel Aviv and DC who think such a war would be a great idea: please be careful what you wish for.