STRIKING SYRIA WILL NOT IMPROVE US CREDIBILITY

I just read the 4 page US assessment of its evidence on Syria.  It begins by saying "The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013." Beyond this there is nothing else. "High confidence" is just short of confirmation.

There are no satellite images showing that rockets were launched from Syrian government controlled areas at a specific time when these chemical weapon massacres took place, as the report claims.  Although the report states that numerous public media reports from different locations throughout the site of the attacks have been reviewed, no references are provided and the reader must research the internet on his/her own to verify the information used by US government.

There is nothing in the report, beyond the "assessment" of the US Government that would prove its veracity. While I am no fan of the Assad Regime, I must say this is Déjà vu: Iraq/Colin Powell/weapons of mass destruction.

The US claims that its credibility is at stake if it does not act against Syria. It says countries like North Korea and Iran are waiting in the lurch wondering if Syria will get away with using chemical weapons.  But the credibility of the US has already been devalued because of its lack of response to Israel's use of chemical weapons against the Palestinians.

There is wide spread evidence that Israel admittedly used white phosphorous on the Palestinians in Gaza.  see http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/03/israels-illegal-use-of-white-phosphorus-during-operation-cast-lead/

But the US did nothing against Israel. Incidentally, UN buildings in Gaza were targets of the Israeli Army and Israel was in no way penalized for this egregious crime.

The "assessment" by the world is that hose who are allies of the US can use chemical weapons but those who do not subscribe to US dictates and its inconsistent foreign policy cannot.

Inevitably, US officials claim "national security" interests to justify what it does.

US foreign policy cannot be based on "national security" for the use of this policy allows every other country to claim its own "national security" to do whatever it wants thus creating chaos in the world. But wait, there is already chaos in the world. Could it be that the leader of the free world, the country that is the oldest constitutional democracy, is creating chaos in the world?

A constitutional democracy is the best form of government, yet the US is making a mockery of this system by its inconsistent and chaotic foreign policy. By allowing Israel to go unpunished for its use of chemical weapons and then punishing Syria for its use of chemical weapons leaves one to doubt the credibility of the US government. Striking Syria would not make the US credible. In fact, striking Syria would make the US less credible for its lack of response to the Israeli use of chemical weapons against the Palestinians.

US credibility is already at a low point. Striking Syria will not improve US credibility.

US foreign policy should be to encourage the people of every country to want to establish a democracy in their country.  The US should encourage the rebels in Syria to want to remove the President-for-Life Assad for a democratic government.  The US should be a shinning example that a constitutional democracy is the best form of government.




http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/USGassessmentonSyria08302013.pdf

Pressure Upon Israel Could Resolve Iranian Nuclear Issue

             The crisis over the Iranian nuclear aspirations is really quite simple to resolve if there is political will to resolve it. The issue is not the threat of whether Iran will use a nuclear bomb against Israel but rather whether Israel will continue its hegemony over the Middle East, especially over the Palestinians.   Additionally, the hypocrisy that the West adopts visa via Israel and every other Middle Eastern country is overwhelming to the people of the region.  Putting a little pressure upon Apartheid Israel can solve many of the Middle East problems.

           

The belief that Iran will use a nuclear weapon against Israel as an offensive strategy is foolish.  It is inconceivable that any country will use a nuclear bomb against another in an offensive manner. President Harry S. Truman used the nuclear bomb against Japan because he perceived that an invasion of Japan will result in an excessive amount of US casualties. Additionally, President Truman used the atomic bomb knowing full well that there would be no retaliation as no other country had the capability to retaliate with nuclear power. This is not the case today.

            It is highly unlikely that Iran would strike Israel for several reasons.  First, Iran would be committing suicide as Israel has an enormous nuclear capability to strike Iran back with much more devastation. Thus it would be suicidal for Iran to strike the first blow.  Second, the proximity of millions of Muslims around Israel, including Iran, would cause such devastation from the atomic burst that Iran will not benefit strategically within the Muslim world.  Third, the proximity of Jerusalem, a holy site for Muslims, to any potential target within Israel makes striking Israel with nuclear weapons theologically impractical. 

            The hyperbole rhetoric emitting from Apartheid Israeli leaders against Iran is aimed to deflect news coverage about its apartheid practices against the Palestinians.  To seek the sympathies of the West, Apartheid Israel falsely portrays itself as a goldfish in a sea of piranhas. The real fact is that Apartheid Israel is the great white shark in a small pound of fat cat fishes.   As the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel continues its hegemony over the Middle East with unchecked arrogance.  In 1981 and 2007, Apartheid Israel attacked Iraq and Syria, respectively, in an unprovoked attempt to prevent them from developing nuclear capabilities.  Additionally, while the US and the West demand inspections of North Korea and Iran’s nuclear facilities, nothing is said about Israel’s nuclear power plants which, according to exports, have produced hundreds of nuclear weapon warheads.

            Apartheid Israel would like the West and Russia and China, as they are UN Security Council permanent members, to believe that Iran will use nuclear weapon to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth.”  In fact, Iranian President Ahmadinejad never said this statement and this translation is completely wrong.  But Israel knows that perception is reality and putting this perception into minds makes it the “perceived truth”—but this is not always the “truth”.

            President Ahmadinejad, during the speech in which he is accused of wanting to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth,” used the words words “rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” which mean “regime occupying Jerusalem.”[1] Ahmadinejad was advocating a regime change in Israel.  But Apartheid Israel does not want the world to know this and the American press does not want to investigate Israel in fear of retaliation from the powerful Israeli lobby.  To be fair, this wrong interpretation came not from Israel but from Iran itself.  However, when Iran tried to correct the wrong terminology, the quote spiraled out of control.  Of course, Apartheid Israel made this wrongly translated term the center of its propaganda campaign to deflect coverage of its apartheid practices.

            The West’s domination over the Middle East through its proxy Apartheid Israel and the support of Arab dictators and kings who repress the people’s human spirit to be free and democratic continues to make the region unstable.  Further, the discrepancy in policy towards Arab countries and Apartheid Israel leads many in the region to wonder how America and the West could be so hypocritical.  Apartheid Israel can occupy Palestine for over 40 years and no military force is sent to remove the occupier.  Yet, Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait could not be tolerated for one day as the US and Britain rallied the world around Operation Desert Storm in 1990. Apartheid Israel has imprisoned over 1.6 million Palestinians in Gaza and bombed the population relentlessly in the 2008-2009 onslaught without a whisper from the US and the West.  Yet, the world comes to the aid of the Libyans during their Arab Spring revolution to oust Muammar Gaddafi.  The 1.5 billion Muslims cannot understand why they are treated different than the 15 million Jews.

            What further perplexes many Arabs is that Israel is a nuclear power that has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While Pakistan and India have also not signed the Treaty, they have both publicly stated that they do have nuclear warheads.  Israel, on the other hand, has been purposely deceptive as to its nuclear capability.

India has pledged a no first use policy unless it is attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons.  Additionally, India has expressed its commitment to non-proliferation but stated that it considers the “NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognise [sic] the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."[2]  India has cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by entering into agreements to inspect its facilities.

Israel will not cooperate with the IAEA. When called upon to open its nuclear facilities in September, 2009, Israel’s chief delegate to the IAEA conference responded “Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."[3]  Why haven’t Western countries called upon the UN to impose sanctions against Israel for its refusal to have its nuclear facilities inspected?  Why is this double standard for Israel tolerated?

Striking a balance between Iran and Israel can be one way to make Iran more cooperative and to abandon any military component with its nuclear ambitions. Having Israel submit to inspections of its nuclear capabilities and to make it pledge a no first use policy similar to India will give assurance to Iran and all Middle East countries that the West is willing to deal fairly with the people of the region. Additionally, the West needs to exert pressure on Israel to resolve Palestinian statehood aspirations by ending decades of occupation. Failing diplomatic pressure, sanctions upon Israel should be on the table.

Fair dealing in the Middle East is the only thing Arabs want to see. They do not want the West to adopt a pro-Arab policy.  Arabs want a fair policy in the Middle East that treats every country and every religion equally and with dignity.  If this was the policy, the issue with the Iranian nuclear ambitions would not be an issue.  The lack of fairness in Western Middle East policy, however, is driving the region into another major war.  Pressuring Israel to act the way the West demands Iran to act would solve the Middle East problems.

            The question is whether there  is a political will to pressure Israel?


2/25/2012 update:  I just read this article by Allan Hart, author, and found this statement quite interesting to this article: 


"From recently de-classified documents we now know that in a memorandum dated 19 July 1969, Henry Kissinger, then national security adviser, warned President Nixon that the Israelis “are probably more likely than any other country to actually use their nuclear weapons.” And as I mentioned in my post of 30 January with the headline Is Israel on the road to “self-destruction”?, Golda Meir said in an interview I did with her for the BBC’s Panorama programme when she was prime minster that in a doomsday situation Israel “would be prepared to take the region and the world down with it.”"

(© Copyright, Fadi Zanayed.  Publication or distribution of this material is allowed provided its content is not altered and the source and its author are cited.)

---

[1][1] ‘Wiped Off The Face of the Earth’ The Rumor of the Century, Arash Norouzi, May 26, 2007 http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

[2] India seeks Japan's support, calls NPT 'flawed' By IANS, Sat, Mar 24, 2007

http://www.whereincity.com/news/3/15197

[3] Israel pressured on nuclear sites, Aljazeera, September 18, 2009, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/09/2009918173136830771.html

When Will Israel Attack Iran?

                Major events between the Palestinians and Apartheid Israelis usually happen in a lame duck session of an outgoing US President, i.e. the time between the November election and the inaugural of a new President.   Should President Barack Obama lose his bid for a second term as US President in November of this year, recent history teaches us that something dramatic will happen in the Middle East.  There is a concern that during that time period Israel will strike Iran to preempt it from obtaining a nuclear facility capable of producing a nuclear bomb.

                The rhetoric coming out of the Apartheid Israeli government about the option to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is at a high pitch tone.  While this saber rattling by Apartheid Israel is aimed to deflect its own atrocities against the Palestinians, it is hypocritical in that Israel has a history of opacity about its own nuclear reactor.   Nonetheless, Apartheid Israel is preparing the world public opinion for an attack against Iran. The question is not whether Apartheid Israel will attack Iran but rather when will it attack?

Apartheid Israel has a history of attacking Middle Eastern countries that are attempting to develop nuclear power.  On June 7, 1981, Apartheid Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 10.5 miles southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. On September 6, 2007, Apartheid Israel struck a nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria.  Syria denied that the nuclear reactor was designed for military purposes.   

The time between the outgoing and incoming US Presidents seems to be the timing when Israel will most likely attack Iran.  I say this because of several historical events which happened between these time frames.  

               

In 1980, the Iran Hostage Crisis did not end until the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan and the departure of President Jimmy Carter.  In 1988, secret events were undertaken by the United States to have the PLO recognize Israel during the time after the 1988 elections and the inaugural of President George Bush Sr.  In 2008, when President George W. Bush was leaving office and Americans elected Barack Obama as President-Elect, Apartheid Israel launched Operation Lead Cast against the Palestinians in Gaza.  The assault on Gaza did not end until two days before the inaugural of President Obama.

 

                These significant developments in the Middle East around a lame duck Presidency period leads me to conclude that should President Obama lose his bid for re-election in November, then it is highly likely that Apartheid Israel will attack Iran between the election and before the inaugural of the newly elected Republican.   If this happens, President Obama will not be in a position to do anything against Apartheid Israel that cannot be undone by an incoming President beholden to the Apartheid Israeli lobby.   Additionally, a President-Elect can then claim that what has been done by Israel is done and cannot then challenge Apartheid Israel but will instead have to deal with the fallout of the attack.

               

As noted above, Israel has had a history of vagueness about whether it has a nuclear reactor with enriched uranium capable of producing an atomic bomb.  It has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, neither has Pakistan or India though these countries are confirmed nuclear powers. Israel remains ambiguous about its nuclear capabilities.   

               

It is hypocritical for Israel to have a nuclear reactor, not be a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and then threaten to attack another country for trying to develop nuclear capability. It is believed that Apartheid Israel has between 75 to 400 nuclear weapons and has had them since 1967.

                While Iranian President  Mahmud Ahmadinejad has made statements calling for Israel’s destruction, it cannot be reasonable believed that he nor any Iranian leader will attack Apartheid Israel with a nuclear weapon.  Such an act would be contrary to the Muslim dogma of protecting the holy city of Jerusalem.  Any such attack will inevitable have a considerable fallout throughout the Middle East and will affect millions of Muslims including Iran itself.  Any such attack would be unrealistic from an offensive standpoint. 

               

Israel, on the other hand, is willing to take offensive measures against Iran as they have done so against Iraq and Syria.  While the fallout of the Iraq and Syria attacks was next to nothing, it may not be so with Iran.  Iran has one and a half more times the population of both Iraq and Syria.  Iran controls the Strait of Harmous of which 20% of the world’s oil supply flows.  Just the mere threat that the oil flow will be impeded by Iran has driven the price of a barrel of oil up. Having the oil supply actually interrupted will cause havoc with any already burdened world economy. 

Israel will attack Iran. The real question is whether anyone has the political will to stop Israel?