Saturday, September 7, 2013

Argument Favoring US Strike in Syria

Arak/Fordow refers to Iran's nuclear development program.  
Think about it. 
If the Syrian civil war (which is already in reality a regional proxy war) is about to spread, which is better, a reactive response to an unknown (which could very will involve chemical weapons, hello) or a pre-emptive "first strike"?
And anyone who imagines an Israeli first strike is not a de facto US action is living in a fool's paradise.
The question is not how Assad will respond to a US strike, but how Israel might respond in the absence of US involvement.
I will be looking for other expert opinion about this question, since there seems to be no ambiguity if Israeli political campaigns are consulted. 


  1. Worth noting the original tweet is from the Exec. Director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, one of the main neocon/AIPAC intersections in DC, and should therefore be seen as a blatant attempt at having the tail wag the dog rather than a prediction that is inevitable.

  2. The suggestion that we're going to have to have war with Syria otherwise we'll be dragged into war with Iran is not only morally corrupt at the highest level, its also a lie coming from WINEP, since they'll want a war with Iran *anyway*.

  3. Thanks for that. Your scholarship is deeper than mine, I'm sure. I hope you're correct that this is just more saber-rattling.
    Being the eternal optimist I will be hoping until the last minute for a political alternative.