Bombing Syria Will Only STRENGTHEN the Hardliners

From the Shooting-Ourselves-In-the-Foot Department

The Wall Street Journal notes:

A U.S. attack on Syria would likely dash expectations of progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran and undermine new Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s call for improving relations with the West, diplomats said.

An attack on Damascus would likely give Iranian hard-liners, who oppose a nuclear compromise, the upper hand over moderate President Hasan Rouhani, who has made foreign policy and nuclear talks a priority.


“A direct U.S.-Iran conflict in Syria will only widen the chasm of mistrust needed to be bridged in order to reach a nuclear accommodation,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Salon agrees:

Obama would be bombing Iran’s main ally, strengthening the hand of hardliners in Tehran and undermining Rouhani’s room for maneuver.


Officials cautious of intervening say targeted strikes to punish Mr. Assad for using chemical weapons risk triggering a bloody escalation. If the regime digs in and uses chemical weapons again, or launches retaliatory attacks against the U.S. and its allies in the region, Mr. Obama will come under fierce pressure to respond more forcefully, increasing the chances of full-scale war, the officials say.

And, of course, Russia—which has declared that it won’t support an American action against Syria—could up the ante, too, by backing Assad more powerfully in response.

As we’ve previously noted, attacking Iran would only speed up its development of nuclear weapons, empower its hardliners, and undermine the chance for democratic reform. The same is true for Syria and any chemical weapons which the nation possesses.

Indeed, the key architect of America’s war plan against Syria says:

If we start picking off chemical weapons targets in Syria, the logical response is if any weapons are left in the warehouses, he’s going to start dispersing them among his forces ….

If they’re dispersed away from central government warehouses to scattered military forces, they are more likely to be used.

Finally, bombing the Syrian government will strengthen the Al Qaeda, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood dominated rebels.

Not very smart …

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Don Robertson

    In the buckshot -preponderance of the evidence- logic of science, world war is a good idea, a proven idea that will revive the world economy.

    These damned scientists though, they are the ones who gave us the cruise missiles too.

    Here is a new music video just created tonight, Fukushima Too. I’m doing my part by thinking straight, are you?

  • Locke

    Obama is making himself looking like a cowardly idiot, drawing a line in the sand if chemical weapons are used, then backing off when it appears they were used. But do we know which SIDE used them? Since Al Qaeda received several thousand missiles, including HEAT SEEKING missiles in the Benghazi “weapons to Turkey to Syria” scheme in which Al Qaeda killed off our “ambassador” (or “arms dealer”) so there would be no one left to talk about it, with the full support of Obama and the state department. Dead men tell no tales, and it’s obvious from the stand down orders from the top that the administration wanted to do a bit of tidying up while the warehouses full of missiles were emptied out by Al Qaeda.

    Al Qaeda IS the “rebels” in Syria, the same group we’ve made the villains of the inside 9/11 job, and the bogeyman behind every evil act for the last 15 years, largely funded by the CIA and the USA. Now we’re actively arming them in Syria. I’m sorry, but would putting Islamic fanatics in charge of Syria be an improvement, since it would guarantee a war between them and Israel? Are they our patsies or our enemies? Obviously this administration sees them as good buddies who they can get to do their bidding, as long as we provide the money and the weapons.

    There is NO support whatsoever in the USA to get involved in the Syrian civil war, but obviously this administration has already gotten involved behind our backs. Obama thinks he can use NATO without congressional approval, since they let him get away with it in Libya, and didn’t demand he get their support after the 90 days the law apparently allows him to wage war all by himself. Do we really want to get into a war with Russia over a country 95% of Americans couldn’t find on a map, and have absolutely NO idea what sort of government it has or why we should even care?

    If Bush had tried this, he would have been impeached. The left-wing senate and cowardly leadership in the house guarantee that Obama will never be called to account.

  • pragmatic Jim

    “why we should even care?”
    Typical American response.

    Though it is true that Al Qaeda is one of the principal backers of the rebels, innocent Syrians are dying by the tens of thousands. Millions of them have fled. Should we let them fight it out until the rebels are all gone?

  • yougesh

    An attack on Damascus would likely give Iranian hard-liners, Kind Mod who oppose a nuclear compromise, king mod by surefire the upper hand over moderate President Hasan Rouhani, who has made foreign policy and nuclear talks a priority little boy rda