by Sheldon Richman
We should be grateful that the Obama administration seems
disinclined to intervene militarily in Syria. But let’s note that the
administration has not kept hands off.
In a variety of ways, it is already aiding the rebels. Moreover, White
House spokesman Jay Carney says that all options — even military
intervention — are on the table.
Americans should feel uneasy as long as that ominous table remains in the White House.
Naturally, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney never
appears hesitant about going to war. He calls for “more assertive
measures to end the Assad regime” in Syria. But he and his
foreign-policy advisers, George W. Bush neoconservative retreads, have
no idea what ending the al-Assad regime would mean. Let’s recall that
Romney’s team includes some of the same people who thought Iraq would be
a “cakewalk,” with the Iraqis throwing rose petals at the invading
American forces. It
didn’t quite work out that way. More Americans died in Iraq than died
on 9/11, which, by the way, Iraq had nothing to do with. (Over a million
Iraqis died, directly and indirectly, because of the war, and millions
remain refugees.)
For now at least, the White House, through Carney, has it right:
The concern is that further militarization of the situation in Syria could lead to greater chaos, could make it harder to achieve the political transition that the Syrian people deserve. The nature and shape of and membership of the opposition are still something that we and our partners are assessing....
This is not to say that the rule of Bashar al-Assad is a matter of
indifference to decent people. Far from it. He’s a brutal dictator from a
minority sect. But no one can know what would follow his overthrow,
especially one engineered by the U.S. government. Just to indicate how
murky things are, al-Qaeda and Hamas — two groups the U.S. government is
hardly fond of — support the rebels. Rebellions make for strange
bedfellows. If the Taliban were to announce its opposition to al-Assad,
the irony would be complete.
Iran, on the other hand, is al-Assad’s ally, which probably
explains in large measure why the U.S. government wants al-Assad gone.
Knocking him out would presumably deal a blow to Iran, and both the
Obama administration and the Romney camp would like nothing more. That’s
how deep the animosity toward Iran runs.
One can’t understand the U.S. anti-Assad stance apart from the
Iranian context. The so-called talks between the Islamic Republic and
the U.S. government plus five other countries over Iran’s nuclear
enrichment are showing all the signs of a sham. Keep in mind that U.S.
and Israeli intelligence say Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and
has not even decided to do so. In fact, its leader has issued a fatwa
against nuclear arms.
The Obama administration, pressured by Congress, which is in turn
pressured by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has imposed
harsh trade sanctions on the Iranian people. This economic warfare is
undoubtedly taking its toll on children, the elderly, pregnant women,
and the infirm.
So, what are the talks aimed at? They are little more than a show in
which the Obama administration insists that Iran stop doing what any
signer of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has the recognized
prerogative to do: enrich uranium for medical and energy purposes. Iran
complies with the NPT and submits to inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency. But that’s not good enough for President Obama or
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel has over 200 nuclear
warheads, is not a signer of the NPT,
and never submits to inspections. Moreover, any other country that
acquired a nuclear arsenal the way
Israel did would have been condemned by the United States.
The U.S. government — and most of the news media — take as an
unquestionable article of faith that virtually anything that happens in
the world is America’s business. Over the years, that position has
brought untold death and destruction to the Middle East, Latin America,
and Southeast Asia. It’s time America gave up its imperial pretensions.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) and editor of The Freeman magazine.
No comments:
Post a Comment