Here’s the real deal on this, as explained by a commentator at TAC:
It is Israel that intends to benefit most from the Syria crisis. This is because Israel wants an Iran war. But in an Iran war, Israel is likely to be hit by not only Iranian missiles, but Syrian and Hizballah missiles. In any event, Israeli strategists cannot rule that out. Such a war might result in the Israeli electorate hiding in bunkers for most of every day, damaging the economy, and resulting in political turmoil in the next elections.
This is why Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006. They failed because they underestimated Hizballah’s preparations and overestimated Israeli airpower.
The only way for Israel to crack the Hizballah nut is to attack via the Bekaa Valley – which means crossing Syrian territory. The only way to do that with minimal casualties – a political necessity in Israel – is if Syrian forces are already under attack by the US and NATO a la Libya – the model for this crisis.
So step by step the US, France, Britain and Israel have been laying the groundwork for foreign military intervention.
It’s so true that it’s become a cliche, but nevertheless, it’s reality: We’re marching off to war again on command from our masters in Israel.
Syria is a proxy state for Russia, like Iran. (As discussed, we have some sympathy for Russia at this moment in time.) Turkey is interesting because the Kurds ally with Assad, but Erdogan has worked well with the Kurds, so the Kurds have offered no help (interesting about the riots in the West/non-Kurd areas of Turkey, no?) Erdogan’s failure to put more pressure on Syria might be the cause.
There is reasonable fear that once the revolt started (encouraged with arms and money by the West) the secular forces were overwhelmed by a sect of Islamic fighters who were occupying lands and increasing in strength, retreating over borders as needed.
Assad actually illustrated the propaganda problem when he referred to the rebels collectively as Al Qaeda (see how it works both ways?) There are Chechnyian fighters in the rebel forces, and might have some angle on the Boston Marathon bombing. The Islamist rebel forces in Syria, (possibly, I am just speaking for what I believe to be thinking amongst the elites) did not want to see the US arm the secular rebels–that is not in their interest for two reason–one the secular rebels are stronger and two, if the Islamists are seen as NATO lackeys, they lose support (food, money…)–in that sense, the Marathon Bombing is political theater, to the extent it was part of esoteric politics, but we still don’t know by who, but I think we can eliminate Russia if indeed, the Islamist rebels did not want to see the secular rebels be embraced by the West.
So the West does want to prop up the “secular” rebel forces in Syria, and prevent a Salafis and Ikhwanis victory, but I suspect they are still going to get their territory, and they will probably purchase weapons from the secular forces the West arms. My guess is that the move to arm the rebels will encourage a peace meeting where Assad constituencies get some sort of state, Christian minorities are protected–something like that, some place for these refugees. That is the best outcome.
Or World War III. Probably somewhere in the middle so lots more refugees coming to the US of A and another failed state on Israel’s border.
Of course, the theories posted above are also worth exploring.
If you subscribe to the “follow the money” mantra in an investigation (i.e., who is in a position to benefit), the finger has to point directly at Israel.
Which is odd. Obama is no friend of Israel, and I can’t see him being conned into being their shill. But then again, he comes across as so clueless in international affairs that one wonders if he is simply following a script provided to him.
On an ancillary note, John McCain has shown his true colors here, and it is a damn shame that he was given the opportunity to run for President by a mainstream party. I hope this affair renders him before the American people as the anti-Constitutional wanna-be opportunist that he is.
What a nightmare a McCain presidency would have been!
What’s amusing about all of this is it seems like Israel would benefit most from not having meddled, offering cash for Palestinian land and cash for someone to accept them. The Muslims will not forget now.
Thaddeus and Weaver,
Israel wants a weak Syria. The last thing it wants is to be surrounded by the Muslim Brotherhood (If Syria goes, the Palestinians and Salafists take Jordan from the Hashemites). Taking out Assad does not negate the rockets in Lebanon.
A continuing war between Sunnis and Shia Islamists in Syria helps Israel. It drives a wedge between the Sunnis and Iran making an attack on Iran more likely.
Israel doesn’t run our foreign policy. If it did, ours would at least be coherent.
Obama is no friend of Israel, and I can’t see him being conned into being their shill.
I can’t see how anyone could believe that. He hasn’t done anything to oppose them. The illegal settlements have still continued, and he keeps committing the U.S. to wars at Israel’s behest.
The only thing he’s stopped short of doing, so far, is nuking Iran — but only an insane man (McCain), a sell-out in the pocket of the lobby (Graham) or traitors (neocons) would do something that catastrophic.
What is the running narrative as its reported Israel is the entity that supplied the “Assad Done Chemical Weapons” meme? Is Obama trying to pin the info on Israel? Was it a…Leftist faction in Israeli Intelligence who cooked it up?
You could be useful here and we can have actual dialogue on scripts.