It defies imagination that Washington's current "strategy" is being enacted by sober folk. Yet another train wreck in the making whose outcome is so predictable and frightening. Dominoes are falling; leading to greater instability and chaos as the indefinite template that characterizes state-society relations in MENA.
Will the Hashemites be next after the Alawites? Indications seem to suggest they are next on the list. The Saudis and Qataris must be nervous yet they continue to feed the crocodile hoping they won't be next nor last. Good luck on that one. If the Hashemites are overthrown, it won't be long before Muhammad VI of Morocco (who also shares direct lineage to the prophet with the Hashemites) will be targeted and so on.
Already the MB track record is worrisome to some who argue the MB is run by "moderates." MB's rule in Egypt and elsewhere will, comparatively speaking, make the mullahs' rule in Tehran seem downright benign.
Already the MB track record is worrisome to some who argue the MB is run by "moderates." MB's rule in Egypt and elsewhere will, comparatively speaking, make the mullahs' rule in Tehran seem downright benign.
Let's not forget, after all his promises to the Mujahidin-i-Khalq and the other "revolutionary" factions (inc the Marxists and women's groups) who supported him against the Shah, Khomeini's new Islamic Republic Party brutally went after all opposition (the first half of the 1980s) as it secured the theocratic throne for Khomeini and his ilk.
Willing to bet, the MB theocratic template will increasingly resemble the Taliban's rather than the Khomeinists but without the black turbans. No coincidence the Salafists et al are talking about blowing up the Sphinx; just like the Taliban made good on their promise to blow up the Buddhas in Bamiyan. A new phase in Muslim history/rule.
On the economic front, there are some key (and crucial) differences between the MB run Egypt and Khomeini's Iran circa 1979. These are critical leverages but are unlikely to be applied given the current climate of coddling these thugs rather than drawing some clear red lines in the sand.
On the economic front, there are some key (and crucial) differences between the MB run Egypt and Khomeini's Iran circa 1979. These are critical leverages but are unlikely to be applied given the current climate of coddling these thugs rather than drawing some clear red lines in the sand.
Hard to believe so many are blind to what is blatantly obvious right in front of our noses. Or...?
Heil Ikhwan al Muslimin!
Heil Ikhwan al Muslimin!
ARTICLE EXCERPTS:
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, hoping that the conflict in Syria has reached a turning point, is considering deeper intervention to help push President Bashar al-Assad from power, according to government officials involved in the discussions.
While no decisions have been made, the administration is considering several alternatives, including directly providing arms to some opposition fighters.
The most urgent decision, likely to come next week, is whether NATO should deploy surface-to-air missiles in Turkey, ostensibly to protect that country from Syrian missiles that could carry chemical weapons. The State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said Wednesday that the Patriot missile system would not be “for use beyond the Turkish border.”
But some strategists and administration officials believe that Syrian Air Force pilots might fear how else the missile batteries could be used. If so, they could be intimidated from bombing the northern Syrian border towns where the rebels control considerable territory. A NATO survey team is in Turkey, examining possible sites for the batteries.
Other, more distant options include directly providing arms to opposition fighters rather than only continuing to use other countries, especially Qatar, to do so. A riskier course would be to insert C.I.A. officers or allied intelligence services on the ground in Syria, to work more closely with opposition fighters in areas that they now largely control.
Administration officials discussed all of these steps before the presidential election. But the combination of President Obama’s re-election, which has made the White House more willing to take risks, and a series of recent tactical successes by rebel forces, one senior administration official said, “has given this debate a new urgency, and a new focus.”
The outcome of the broader debate about how heavily America should intervene in another Middle Eastern conflict remains uncertain. Mr. Obama’s record in intervening in the Arab Spring has been cautious: While he joined in what began as a humanitarian effort in Libya, he refused to put American military forces on the ground and, with the exception of a C.I.A. and diplomatic presence, ended the American role as soon as Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled.
In the case of Syria, a far more complex conflict than Libya’s, some officials continue to worry that the risks of intervention — both in American lives and in setting off a broader conflict, potentially involving Turkey — are too great to justify action.
In recent months, these officials and diplomats said that the administration had kept them updated about its Syria policy.
Until now, the United States has offered only limited support to the military campaign against the Syrian government, instead providing nearly $200 million in humanitarian and other nonlethal aid.
The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more secular opposition groups supported by the West.
American officials say the administration is now weighing whether the United States should play a more direct role in supplying the opposition fighters with weapons to help ensure that the arms reach the intended groups.
“The problem right now is that we don’t have much visibility into where these weapons are going,” one senior administration official said recently. “That’s the problem with outsourcing the issue.”
On the more immediate concern about defending Turkey, NATO is expected to act on the Patriot missile request next week.
On Wednesday night, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, told an audience at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard that “we’d be very much in favor of” the Turkish request for Patriot missiles “in terms of protecting the security of our ally.” The Patriot PAC-3 is the most modern air defense system in the American and NATO arsenals.
