Image 01 Image 03

Is Syria 2012 Iran 2009?

Is Syria 2012 Iran 2009?

When Iranian protesters took to the streets in June 2009, the Obama administration policy was to keep quiet and indirectly support the regime in the hopes of luring Iran into nuclear arms talks.

Only when the political pressure became too great did Obama speak out, and even then, the administration pursued the negotiaion without precondition path.  The result was that Iran never came to the table in any meaningful way.

There are indications that the same mistake is being made again, this time in Syria.

The Saudi Minister attending the Friends of Syria conference left because of what Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV described as the conference’s “inactivity“:

Saudi Arabia’s delegation walked out of a “Friends of Syria” meeting in Tunis on Friday over what it saw as the gathering’s “inactivity”, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television said.  It said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal left the meeting after saying in a speech that focusing on humanitarian aid to Syria was “not enough”.

The Saudis later tried to downplay the walkout:

Asked about the report, an aide to the Saudi foreign minister told Reuters: “We left to attend bilateral meetings” on the sidelines of the “Friends of Syria” conference.

The Saudis are in favor of providing arms for the rebels, while the U.S. is taking a more passive posture, at least in public.

The website DEBKAFile suggests the Obama administration is holding back in the hope, once again, of luring Iran into nuclear talks.  With so much going on behind the scenes, and possibly covertly, it’s hard to assess the claim, but it makes perfect sense in light of the apparent push to lure Iran back to the table.

I guess we’ll see how it plays out in the next few days, but it’s looking more and more like Syria 2012 is Iran 2009.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The WSJ reports: “The Pentagon is beefing up U.S. sea- and land-based defenses in the Persian Gulf to counter any attempt by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military has notified Congress of plans to preposition new mine-detection and clearing equipment and expand surveillance capabilities in and around the strait… The military also wants to quickly modify weapons systems on ships so they could be used against Iranian fast-attack boats, as well as shore-launched cruise missiles” Which means the escalation slider was just shifted up by one more level, as Iran will next do just what every actor caught in an Always Defect regime as part of an iterated prisoners’ dilemma always does – step up the rhetoric even more, as backing off at this point is impossible. Which means that crude will go that much more higher in the coming days, as now even the MSM is starting to grasp the obvious – from the Guardian: “The drumbeat of war with Iran grows steadily more intense. Each day brings more defiant rhetoric from Tehran, another failed UN nuclear inspection, reports of western military preparations, an assassination, a missile test, or a dire warning that, once again, the world is sliding towards catastrophe. If this all feels familiar, that’s because it is. For Iran, read Iraq in the countdown to the 2003 invasion.”

The most ironic thing of all is that this is happening with a Nobel Peace Prize winner in the White House.

I have to wonder if the NY Times will apologize later.

As we still look for what Joe Biden described as a “Spine of Steel” keep in mind that Pres**ent Obama must be looking for a way to “Wag the Dog.” He placated the radical wing of the party with his contraceptive mandate, so now …

“the Obama administration policy was to keep quiet and indirectly support the regime in the hopes of luring Iran into nuclear arms talks.”

I don’t agree. I believe they kept quiet in the hopes of enabling a nuclear Iran, destabilizing the region and ultimately threatening Israel.

    tsrblke in reply to raven. | February 26, 2012 at 11:06 am

    I still disagree, I think their hope was to keep quiet and not risk agitating the current regime. (e.g. cower in the corner). If things had shifted and the regime looked signficantly vulnerable they’d have shifted too. When betting his own skin (or political capital) Obama never takes risks (that’s reserved for taxpayer money).

According to Benjamin Netanyahu facebook page it says “At the end of the week I will be travelling to the United States of America for important meetings with President Obama and with Canada’s Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.”

It’s a very sad day when Saudi princes are more interested in helping people who are oppressed by a brutal Muslim dictator than the United States is.

It looks like the October surprise will be: War with Iran.

    Milwaukee in reply to Tamminator. | February 26, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Do ya think it will wait until October? That pot is ready to boil. No telling when somebody will decide waiting causes a deterioration in their position, and feel the need to act pre-emptively, for their own survival and success.

In the context of the blog post-Yes.

Then again, all templates are “similar”.

The Obama template is as follows:

If the regime is hostile to the United States, they will receive political, diplomatic, and often financial support from Obama.

If the regime is friendly to the United States, Obama will “meddle”, and demand “reforms”.

As far as the “movement” in Syria being similar to that of the recent Iranian uprising–nothing similar about it, outside of dead civilians.

Here is the important historical contrast our Ivy League policymakers face today: Czechoslovakia, Austria and Poland lacked modern powerful armed forces and long record of victory in defence of a tiny country with its roots in thousands of years of empircally demonstrable history that included divine intervention. That and the fact that the anti Semetism our current policymakers play down has had a long chorous of silence since 1948 that allowed hate to metasticize into quasi statehood. How about a bold statement on that Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, Mrs. Clinton?

Obama seems to love his dictator “friends”. When Zelaya tried to extend his term limits, he went against the Supreme court, his congress, and fired his general. Then with help from Chavez, he started distributing ballots to illegally break their constitution. Obama of course sided with Castro and Chavez.

The Wikileaks documents from Ambassador Ford describes Zelaya … sounding a lot like Obama.

* … yet resents the very existence of the
Congress, the Attorney General and Supreme
Court. Over his two and a half years in
office, he has become increasingly surrounded by
those involved in organized crime activities.

* Zelaya’s principal goal in office is to enrich
himself and his family while leaving a public legacy as
a martyr who tried to do good but was thwarted at
every turn by powerful, unnamed interests.

* he deliberately stirs street action in protest against his own government policy –

* found Zelaya to be gracious and charming, quite willing to tell me whatever he thinks I want to hear at that moment.

* It is clear to me that tactically he will work with almost anyone, but strategically he stands alone.

* describing U.S. immigration policy against illegal aliens as “persecution” by “fascists”

* For Zelaya, communicating means agreeing unquestionably with his point of view.

… and there’s more. Gee, most everything in the profile of wannabe tyrant Zelaya fits Obama to some degree …

Obama’s tactics (seem to) involve breaking down our economy, alienating allies, weakening us militarily, and agitating for class warfare. Our enemies are useful for his own strategy of “fundamentally transforming America”, via manufactured crisis on a grand scale.

Syria is more like Egypt than Iran.

In Iran, you have an Islamic Theocracy that much of the populace would like to overthrow. What would take its place if they did? Who knows, but there’s zero chance it would be worse than what they have now.

In Syria, the opposition (at least the organized part of it) is Muslim Brotherhood. Assad is Alawite, a minority, and he’s always had to oppress the Islamists in the Brotherhood just to maintain power. Sound familiar? Mubarak did the same in Egypt. If Assad falls, the Muslim Brotherhood takes control. How long until they establish an Islamic Republic once they do? Probably less time than they are taking in Egypt.

As always, the FIRST question you should ask when considering regime change is: What will take its place. In Syria, as with Egypt, replacing a brutal dictator with an Islamic Republic is suicidal.

What about the extended had of friendship which requires the clenched fist of hate to uncoil and relax? I thought Pres**ent 0bama was just going to talk these players into doing something calm and rational and smooth, ‘cuz he’s calm and smooth and rational!!!

The pictures of the War Room when people who aren’t President 0bama were killing Osama, showed the 0ne cowering in the corner. Kinda hard to cower in the corner when the bad guys have your name.