Iran Goads Israel To Save Syria

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20110811.aspx

Iran's role in Syria is often overlooked in the analysis of present events.

I don't really see that Israel and/or Gaza have much to do with the demos in Syria. Also, Iran has lots of buddies, and Syria is not that important. If I was Iranian and trying to get Israel to stage another war in Gaza, I'd be doing it to harm Israel, not to save Syria.

I mean, I understand the logic, I'm sure Little Assad would love a nice distraction, but it would have to be done just right or it might finish him off.

It gives their proxy, Hezbollah, a safe base to train and operate. It also facilitates the shipments of arms to Hezbollah. With American forces stationed in Iraq, I would argue that Syria is in fact Iran's most important ally in the region. If Hezbollah is kicked out of Syria and Syria's influence in Lebanon is significantly weakened, then Iran's influence in the region is significantly weakened. Iran is ultimately trying to protect their influence in Lebanon.

Israel and Gaza don't have much to do with Syria - Iran/Syria would simply like another ME conflict as an distraction.

I think post-Assad Syria will be Iraq-like, but with the Sunni-Shi'ia split running the other way, esp. divided, weaker, and wanting to get along with Iran. In particular I don't think Iran's relations to it will be much different, unless change comes to Iran.

:hi:

Yes? So, saying they are goading Israel now to save Syria seems a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc. I think Iran goads Israel because they are enemies, and Syria is just a secondary issue, at best; and as I said, I see little that Iran has to fear from the end of the Assad regime, if anything they are likely to have a freer hand than they do now.

mass murder, mayhem, oil theft and thuggery that the U.S. has inflicted on its neighbor, Iraq?

Iran has shown no territorial ambitions, and is still recovering from the 25 years of torture and terror inflicted on it by the U.S/U.K.-installed "Shah of Iran," after they destroyed Iran's first democratic government and president (because he had nationalized the oil). Iran has good reason to be worried and suspicious of western intentions. Also, they are not Arabs, they are Persians--with a lot of pride in their ancient culture and unique history. They are significantly more egalitarian and democratic than Arab ruled countries tend to be. Their preference, culturally and as to government and world affairs, seems more insular or inward-looking. They fell back on the mullahs to rescue them from the horrible Shah--but fundamentalist Islam doesn't sit well on them, and they would probably reject it if they felt more secure. Persian Islam doesn't tend to create fanatics (like Arab Islam and Rightwing Christianism do.) Even the Arab language is an imposition (and there are Persians who resent it).

Iran seem to me to be in a defensive posture, doing what any government would do, in its circumstances, to protect itself from attack. Does the U.S. not put spies everywhere, and conduct covert ops, and arm one side in conflicts, in what it deems to be its national interest? Is this so unusual for a country that feels threatened? The U.S. has additionally put military bases all over the world, possesses a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, and is involved in three wars, one of them right next door to Iran, and most of it about oil. Is Iran's oil not clearly a target of the U.S.--as it has been for the last half century?

I don't think Iran would have much interest in Israel, if Israel were not an ally of the U.S. war machine. They have never attacked anyone (although they have been attacked--by Saddam Hussein, who got U.S. help in doing so--a terrible war).

I think Iran mostly wants to be left alone--not be interfered with any more. So, as I read through this list of things that Iran is allegedly doing--re Hamas, Syria, Israel, etc.--if there is truth to it (or to similar things), my question, as I said, is about Iran's goal. These and similar things look different when viewed in that light (what Iran's goal might be). Are Iran's leaders so crazy that they think they can eliminate Israel? I don't think their leaders are crazy that way. Do they want to curtail Israel's influence in the region, by siding with the Palestinians? Yes, but why wouldn't they--with Israel so tightly allied to the U.S. war machine? Does Iran--with its history of western interference, and clear targeting by the U.S. today (and in view of the war on Iraq), need allies in the region? Absolutely, and this could well be for a defensive purpose, rather than aggressive intent. Do they need to listen to their own people regarding Iranian views about fair play and justice for the Palestinians? Yes, because Iran's government is in fact more responsive to its people than, say, Saudi Arabia's or Egypt (Mubarak)'s governments. Iran thus has many good reasons, from simply a self-defensive stance, to be meddling in affairs outside their country.

Why assume aggressive intent, when Iran is so outmatched in any ability to make war, compared to the U.S.? Why assume aggressive intent when there is no history of anything but defensive intent?

I think there could be great value in NOT assuming that Iran intends war, just because they are meddling (if they are). I certainly wouldn't urge naivete--that is, ignoring signs of aggression or not evaluating potential for aggression. But foreign policy can be designed to minimize fear in other countries, to ameliorate past wounds that may have been inflicted, to shape actions around diplomacy rather than belligerence and to aim at peace as the guiding principle, without making anyone less safe. And I think that such a foreign policy would, in truth, make everybody safer.

why do they spend so much time and money supporting and arming Hezbollah? Iran has never made any bones of their desire of a Shia dominated arc of the ME spreading from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon.

Stop looking at this through an US versus the rest of the world - countries like Iran have historic enemies and ambitions that date back centuries. You insult their entire history by limiting it to the past 6o years.

all over the region. Iran cannot be understood apart from this reality. The U.S.--encamped and asea on Iran's borders, spying on Iran, no doubt sending covert ops into Iran, and making almost daily hostile statements about Iran--has a history of interference with Iran for half a century. Do you just wipe out all this recent history and interpret everything Iran does as having aggressive intent--as opposed to defensive intent?

Recent events, current conditions and the history of U.S. policy on Iran, are the most pertinent things to consider, in trying to judge Iran's intent. You say they want "a Shia dominated arc of the ME spreading from Iran through Iraq to Lebanon." Doesn't the U.S. want a U.S.-dominated arc of the ME encompassing as much oil as possible?

Can't say the U.S. wants a "democracy-dominated arc" cuz, hey, the U.S. loves the sheiks of araby a lot, for their oil, not for their "democracy." The U.S. doesn't give a crap about democracy. It seeks market dominance for its multinational corporations and war profiteers, and, in exchange, is more than glad to wink at the sheiks and their highnesses' peculiar ways. It's not for anybody's "democracy" that Bush Jr. and pals destroyed our own. The Pentagon is calling the shots anyway. This is U.S. policy--to dominate the ME. Has been for half a century. Is now. So what's so surprising or aggressive about a ME country wanting its own arc of influence and protection? They live there. It's their region.

That's all I'm saying. Instead of looking at the ME as a "theater of war," try for a minute to look at it as a region that has a right to self-determination, where people are feeling more than a little pissed off at their own "sheiks" and at our connivance with the bastards oppressing them, and who have a legitimate interest in governments more to their liking--like the Shia government of Iran--not a democracy, by our lights, but orders of magnitude better than Saudi Arabia. Iran has a right to allies and a right to defend itself, and, as for covert influence, what government doesn't do covert influence, I ask you? It's almost the definition of a government on the world stage. So we're going to nuke 'em cuz they're arms dealing or because they are covertly harassing Israel? Come on. You think WE are not arms dealing over the whole bloody world?! And are we not drone-bombing more civilians every week in Afghanistan/Pakistan, and who even knows what the point of what we're doing in Libya is--"mistakenly" bombing rebels, civilians and loyal military alike? Point or no point, that's what we're doing. And we're going to hate Iran, and target it for war, because they may be doing a bit of the same (if true)?

Why not call off the dogs of war--and try to look at things differently? What the hell are we DOING in the ME anyway? We should be spending those resources converting to non-oil energy just as fast as our very creative people can do so. We should be throwing EVERY defense dollar into it. That will finish off the oil moguls of The East for good. Stupid, stupid, STUPID policy to waste all this grief and our viability as a country trying to corner a vanishing resource--to enrich corporations who don't give goddamn about us.

What to do about Israel? If Israel would start becoming a good neighbor, we might not have to do anything. We could all just concentrate on "green" cars and "green" container ships. But they're entangled in a bloody mess, partly their doing, partly ours--basically a civil war situation, like Ireland or Colombia, or the Hutu's and the Tutsi's. Tribal warfare--a bloody awful thing, not easily ended. It just drives me nuts that the trillions of dollars wasted on weaponry and militarism could have SOLVED almost ANY problem we are looking at ANYWHERE, including Israel/Palestine, and Israel's vulnerability in a hostile region. Israelis have as much right to be there as the Iranians have to be in Iran or the Palestinians have to be in Palestine. But a long standing civil war creates too much profit for the war profiteers--mindbogglingly too much--who perpetuate it with a vengeance, and with each death, hundreds of civil warriors are created, on both sides. Civil war is awful that way. Its proximate horrors create endemic hatred.

I think we need to look at this--Israel's situation--in a new way, too. Maybe we need to recognize that the founders of Israel and the western governments went about creating Israel in the wrong way, to begin with. Why not apologize for it, hammer swords into plowshares and share the grief? With global warming, and the insane looting of everything by the rich of the western world, we're all going to be up shit creek soon, anyway. Why doesn't somebody do something generous that will change the paradigm of war and more war?

And I'm only putting this on the U.S. and Israel, for the moment, because they are the powerful parties. Why can't the powerful come up with some NEW ideas--other than killing people and imprisoning them and stealing their land and making their lives hell? And it isn't just Israel. This is now the U.S. modus operandi. In Iraq. In Afghanistan. In Libya. In Colombia. Now in Honduras. Where are we going to extend this war paradigm to next? We have done Israel NO FAVOR by arming them to the teeth. Our war profiteers bear the most responsibility for polluting Israel with the idea that they can exist in the ME as an armed fortress. I really don't blame Israelis for this. Theirs is a tiny, vulnerable country that had to get help where it could--which made them prey to our war profiteers and empowered their war profiteers and militarists. And now we're all stuck with this situation on a dying planet.

Despair is what I feel, thinking of Israel. I don't have any answers. But I know what ISN'T an answer--what ISN'T viable--and that is Israel as a sort of medieval fortress, bristling with armaments--while even its own people are starting to riot because of the costs of war! There is no just end to the tragedy that is Israel but there COULD BE a bette future. There is no just end to the tragedy that is the Middle East--once the "cradle of civilization"--but there COULD BE a better future. The wounds of the past cannot be healed, but there COULD BE a better future--If we could only think about it differently. I know it takes more than that--it takes democratic power, it takes organization, it takes a lot of will to turn off the war paradigm and start creating something better. The ME needs this. Israel needs this. We need this. And the world needs this. A peaceful future.

:yawn:

or are you simply a person who doesn't like real discussions?

:)

Maybe this warlord cheerleader drool stuff floats your boat, but the rabid keyboard commando doesn't do a thing for me. Call me crazy.

going back centuries? It can all be summed up as the Evil Amerikkkan empire and the JOOOOS? Got it.