Here is some stuff to think about:
One thing is clear: the statements by Iran’s leaders have shifted from earlier this year, when high-ranking Iranian officials said a foreign attack on Syria would be treated as an attack on Iran itself. There may even be some relief at the prospect of more direct American involvement in the Syrian conflict, which has occasionally been cast as “Iran’s Vietnam,” some analysts say.
“The reality is that Obama’s military action will make the Syrian tragedy his and not Iran’s,” wrote Farideh Farhi, an Iran scholar at the University of Hawaii, in an analysis published online at Lobelog.com. “And in Iran’s postelection environment, in which the country has moved toward national reconciliation — both among the elite and between the government and the population — nothing suits the Islamic Republic better than divesting itself from this issue quietly.”
For all their mutual antipathy, the United States and Iran may ultimately find common ground in Syria.
“The United States and Iran are fighting a zero-sum proxy war in Syria at the moment,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “If and when Assad falls, the two sides will have a mutual adversary in radical Sunni jihadists.”
Eventually, some kind of outcome, if not resolution, is going to happen in Syria. And the analysis we’re reading here predicts that both Iran and the U.S. will be losers, but that maybe they can become friends as a result. Like two past-their-last-chance drunks at the bar, Iran and America can commiserate about their miseries. That could be the best we have the right to hope for.
The prospects for another outcome, like some kind of negotiated settlement of the civil war that precluded total victory by any side, went to the wayside when the chemical attacks happened on August 21st. The Assad regime is now considered too monstrous (at least, in the West) to be allowed to cling to any part of power. We aren’t going to negotiate with Assad or anyone in his regime.
Maybe Iran can see the writing on the wall, but can we? Neither side can like where this is going, and nobody loves you when you’re down and out.
It’s time to drop the logic and momentum of schoolyard taunts. Enough talk of “red lines” and “fecklessness” and “cowardice.” It’s time for more creative thinking.
Nice blog
Off topic but how does this leak constitute whistle blowing? This isn’t a game. I’m sure a few sources at ISI are dead or in jail.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-secret-us-intelligence-files-show-new-levels-of-d
istrust-of-pakistan/2013/09/02/e19d03c2-11bf-11e3-b630-36617ca6640f_story.html
I don’t want to hijack the post either, but I want to “second” your recommended link:
The public is not aware of US ambivalence about Pakistan’s weapons capability. It’s not like this leak isn’t a public secret to US policy watchers or to Pakistan. Any casualties are unrelated to the leak. I don’t see any exposures of sources or methods in the WaPo report. It has has been screened by the WaPo editorial staff, who regularly contact the relevant agencies for response.
That’s a trail that leads right back to September 2001.
The Ayatollah is absolutely committed to the Syrian Shiite family dictatorship and I doubt he sees the writing on the wall if that means the end of Assad junior. We have co-religion and the land bridge to Israeli bogeyman Hizbollah as the Iranian national interests, both crucial. So if Assad does indeed go, Iran is the clear “loser”.
As for the certainty of Assad’s fall, before his CW adventure he was widely seen as prevailing, I thought. Now this has apparently come to be (again) in doubt. He still looks like a tough nut to crack, and he has really shit the “negotiation” bed with the CW attack. How long will the Ayatollah deny this? Probably forever. As Juan Cole points out, Iranian veterans don’t like CW use….so it couldn’t have happened.
As always the Iranian situation is far more complicated. Rafsanjani’s (now censored) denunciation of Assad for CW use suggests some of the complications. And it’s not just veterans that hate CW; ayatollah himself regards them as haram, like nukes. I doubt his personal commitment to Bashar is at all deep.
Iran and US constantly have compatible interests in the region if only they’d recognize it. Perhaps between now and whenever Congress manages to vote on something.
Nice analysis of a rapidly changing external environment to the Syrian civil war.
The Assad regime lost its legitimacy early on. But any negotiated settlement among the political forces in Syria is going to require the involvement of loyalist Baath factions to be successful. That means negotiating with folks in his regime who were not involved in the chemical weapons attacks and who were nowhere near that decision. A negotiated settlement is a very remote possibility but still possible with a lot of concerted diplomatic work from the proxy sponsors.
So Iran sees continued negotiation with the US more in their interest than reflexively coming to the defense of Syria. That is an encouraging sign. If Saudi Arabia will back off as well, it might be possible to wind down the civil war. (Now that Qatar is essentially a client state of Saudi Arabia and has dropped its support for the Moslem Brotherhood>) There is no question in my mind that Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq would welcome a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately I don’t see the US having the diplomatic skills to pull off a negotiated settlement and I’m not sure that Russia has the political will to abandon the Baath regime and broker a negotiated settlement. And one of the points that should be insisted on in any negotiated settlement is the detention of the people who carried out the chemical attack, and their submission to the ICC to stand trial. All of that is heavy diplomatic lifting that the nations of the world seem to willing to shortcut with military action.
What is emerging is Saudi financial hegemony on the Arabian peninsula and in Egypt. Extending that to Syria would put Jordan under great pressure for regime change in a more Islamist direction and destabilize Iraq. It is in the interests of the US to begin rapprochement with Iran to balance growing Saudi power. Not going off half-cocked with regard to Syria could be a step toward that rapprochement.
Yes. Well over four years past time to make that change. Neither President Obama nor Secretary of State do the warmonger strut very well. It’s time for both of them to get back to the mature style of operated that caused people to vote for them. Whoever told them that strutting equated to presenting an argument for action needs to be fired.
I think Turkey wants total victory. Not sure why, but their leadership really dislikes Assad.
.
Follows self-interest of economical ties to Kurdish northern Iraq and to get a pipeline for the Kirkuk oil and gas treasures.
○ Kerry Furious – True Face PM Erdogan of Turkey
○ Sultan Erdogan of the Emirate of Turkey
For Turkey, it’s about two things: refugees and Kurds. And it seems Erdogan seems to believe that he can live with a Salafist or Wahabist government next door.
Coexistence Between MB and Wahhabis?
.
“The
United StatesSaudi Arabia and Iran are fighting a zero-sum proxy war in Syria at the moment.”The US needs to constitute their own policy of national interest in the Middle East and NOT follow the lead of Israel (Netanyahu), Saudi Arabia (Prince Bandar) or Qatar (Muslim Brothers). Obama needs some new advisors with a clear head on stopping the violence in Syria. Russia and Iran should be part of those talks.
A provocation? Israel launches two ballistic missiles in the Med today
Did we all notice in June: US Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government Made News to Americans.
Better than having Judy Miller on Cheney’s speed dial.
If you think Libya was bad post-dictator, just wait. This article in the Atlantic was instructive….http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor-day-syria-reader-part-2-william-
polk/279255/
How much of Arab Spring is climate change?
The Arab Spring climate change angle is very interesting.
A good summery from of the current state of Obama’s case for war from McClatchy.
The bar for war is now so low that there’s nothing to stop this POTUS or the next President Christie or Cruz to reprise the claim that Iran used CW against Iraq.
There’s evidence going back to at least last spring that the al-Nusra Front terrorists have
home-made sarin rockets and that the gas may be supplied by Saudi Prince Bandar’s secret service:
May 5
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-05/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-unbre94409z-20130505_1_che
mical-weapons-sarin-syria
June 6
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592880/russia-syrian-rebels-made-used-sarin-nerve-gas/
July 9
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/05/on_may_30_the_turkish.php
August 29
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapon
s/168135/
September 2
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/02/1235688/-Syrian-gas-rockets-appear-homemade-and-incapable-o
f-flying-5-10-miles-to-target
This raises prospects of a generally similar terorism- plus-disinformation strategy used to get the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
All the “serious people” dismiss those reports. They much prefer the secret Israeli intercept and recording of a conversation between unidentified Syrian officials about Assad’s successful CW attack. (The fact that all that is classified and not for public scrutiny, only adds to their confidence that it is real and the smoking gun need to bomb Syria.) They also completely reject that any of the Syrian rebels could possibly have the means, motive, and opportunity to use CW.
Watching all the self-identified liberals working themselves into supporting another war would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. Most did the same thing back in 2002-03; although some were too politically partisan to back a Bush war.
If all the “serious people” spent five minutes looking at the many images we have of the alleged rockets and the videos of them being fired they would conclude that the “homemade” rockets were manufactured on an assembly line using modest technology but requiring a significant investment in infrastructure. These were not manufactured in someone’s garage.
And if you look at the videos of the rebels cheerfully manufacturing their homemade rockets you will see the difference. I’ve posted links to all of this material in the past which has been on the web all this time. No excuses.
Proof that the pictures weren’t?
And the “non-serious people” note:
So, it’s a moral and not a legal red line that is being claimed that Assad crossed. And for that, the US is going to kill some people. Sort like the rational Operation Rescue uses to kill physician abortion providers.
Syria is neither a signatory nor a party to the convention. Does that make it OK then?
Technically under international law, no country is prohibited from using CW domestically. Is that right? Of course not. But if we want to go down that road, there’s no shortage of things humans do to one other that aren’t civilized, and by my standards aren’t right, but aren’t illegal or prohibited. Capital punishment isn’t right, but that doesn’t stop many US states and countries from that practice.
Wars of aggression aren’t legal or right, but you seem to think that’s okay if a sovereign government engages in behavior that is morally offensive to civilized peoples. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And how does your position on Syria differ from that of Operation Rescue?
I completely fail to see, in fact deplore, the attempts to undermine the chemical weapons ban by the Left as a minor tactic in a larger argument about the appropriate response of the US government acting unilaterally against Syria.
Argue the morality, legality or wisdom of a military response all you like but for God’s sake leave the chemical weapons ban out of it. If the outcome of this incident leaves that prohibition weakened in any respect, especially as a consequence of Leftist political activism, if will be a crying shame and an act of disrespect for all those who laboured hard and long throughout history to establish it. Especially the activists whom proceeded us and fought for this steadily and determinedly down through the decades. I have seen some questionable choices made before for short term political motivations but this one crowns them all in my experience.
I have argued this point with you up and down and you just won’t let it alone; I posted long and courteous comments in your diary on the subject. What gives? You really want to see the convention torn up and danced on? Really? It defies my understanding, it really does.
I don’t think Operation Rescue stockpiles or has used banned chemical weapons. Certainly not sarin.
You seem to have figured this whole thing some time ago. I posted the links for those of us who still have a lot of questions about it.
Yeah, right.
I’m guessing that the odds of a military strike have declined sharply recently and Obama’s motivation to turn to Congress includes buying time; something is probably going on behind the scenes.
Interesting nuance in Rouhani’s recent remarks:
Whatever happens it will be interesting to see if Iran and Russia tighten ranks diplomatically; I’m guessing we tend to overlook the threat that Assad’s indiscretion has raised to their respective intentions in the region.
Here’s some off-the-wall possibilities of what is going on behind the scenes. Call it the best-case-scenario.
Obama and Putin come to an agreement that defuses the situation in both Syria and Iran. Looks like this. Putin pulls the rug out from under Assad. Syrian military close to Russia ease Assad out just like the Egyptian military staff eased Mubarak out. Baath Party leadership enters into negotiations with rebels to form new government. US backs off on punishing Iran, comes to agreement on Iran’s civilian nuclear program and begins process of normalization of relations. On the competing pipeline deals, agree to implement both Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline and Qatar-to-Nambucco (Turkey) pipeline to Europe. Deal allows some Russian oil/gas interests significant influence in Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline.
Now it all that comes to pass, who is left out?
BTW, we often project our own intentions in the region onto our competitors. Russia’s interest in Syria is a Mediterranean port and preservation of Gazprom’s monopoly over deliver of natural gas to Europe (for political and national security control). Remember that Russia has been invaded enough to have a sligtly paranoid foreign policy. Iran’s interest in in protecting Shi’ite populations in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and other countries and countering Israel’s military power with a view of forcing justice for Palestinians.
“Baath Party leadership enters into negotiations with rebels to form new government.”
I would not call this the best-case scenario, I would call it flat out impossible. Baath party negotiating with Saudi-backed al-Nusra to form new government? Or which of countless other groups?
In any case, you should not omit the Saudis from any possible scenario, because they are surely a big player in this.
I’m a longtime Obama supporter, so I say with trepidation that this Syria gambit might be a way to “engage” the House republicans and give them cover for caving on the upcoming debt ceiling and budget impasses.
It may not be the prime motivator, but I suspect it’s in there. All the oxygen has been sucked up by Syria. If Obama wins approval, the House republicans will have to come through on the debt and budget. If Obama loses, he’s off the hook on Syria and the House republicans risk looking like the only word they know is “No.”
Only 27 days until the end of the fiscal year. Boehner’s folks think that his Yes vote on Syria will help them with the budget/debt ceiling hostage-taking. (i.e. What are you going to cut, Mr. President, to offset that war you are carrying out in Syria?)
The prospects for another outcome, like some kind of negotiated settlement of the civil war that precluded total victory by any side, went to the wayside when the chemical attacks happened on August 21st. The Assad regime is now considered too monstrous (at least, in the West) to be allowed to cling to any part of power. We aren’t going to negotiate with Assad or anyone in his regime.
spybubble pro review