Romney has called for "arming the rebels"...Is that a well-thought-out policy?

[Benny B]

Does Romney have inside information on just who the Syrian "rebels" are, or is he just taking a position that Obama has not yet committed to, simply to be contrarian (and hawkish), as is the current GOP policy on everything regarding the Obama administration?  Is Romney "ready for prime time" as it pertains to foreign policy?

Syria's President says countries like the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are hindering peace in his country by supporting those he calls 'terrorists'. Bashar al-Assad accused Washington of being partially responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians by partnering with the rebels. The Syrian army have started large-scale drills simulating defense against outside attacks. Some opposition leaders previously appealed to the West for foreign intervention against the regime. But as Maria Finoshina reports from Syria, many in the country are fearing for their lives if the rebel forces get what they want.

Of course, much of what you have just watched could be Putin/Russian position propaganda to support their interests. Nonetheless, I am inherently suspicious when France & Britain want to get involved militarily in the Middle East (check your history textbooks), thereby dragging in the U.S. as their dutiful "ally."

[Benny B]

Common Goals and Interests of Iran and Russia in Syria
Friday, February 17, 2012

Vali Kouzegar Kaleji

A prominent characteristic of international political players is relativity of relations among them. This essential characteristic forms the basis for the regulation of each country’s goals and interests and determines with what countries, relations should be cordial, hostile, or neutral. Naturally, Iran and Russia, as two major players in international political scene, are no exception to this essential rule. In fact, vacillations in two countries’ relations over the past few centuries should be explained in the light of this rule, which has caused them to get close or distance from each other in various junctures of history. Rapid and complicated developments in the Middle East, especially in Syria, should be considered a turning point in historical relations between Tehran and Moscow, which despite certain differences between the two countries have created many common grounds for the promotion of relations between Tehran and Moscow. This brief article will explore those commonalties in a bid to provide better understanding of recent developments in two countries’ relations.



Political developments in Syria have provided a good ground which has given objective prominence to Iran's commonalties with Russia with regard to developments at international level and in the Middle East region. Both countries, for various historical and geopolitical reasons and because of their interests and national security concerns, are opposed to further expansion of the West’s political, economic, and military domination in their peripheral regions. Therefore, Tehran and Moscow have taken generally similar stances over the past years on such important issues as the eastward expansion of NATO; deployment of the United States’ missile defense shield in the Republic of Czech, Poland, and now Turkey; colored revolutions in peripheral regions of Syria; activities of Western-minded cultural and political institutions; and expansion of the West’s economic activities, especially in the field of energy. Therefore, both countries’ position on the ongoing developments in Syria should be explained in the light of their common concern about unbridled expansion of the West’s influence in the strategic Middle East region.

Russians are well aware that if the current political system in Syria is overthrown, the whole Middle East region will come under the West’s, especially US, domination and this would be a great loss for a reviving Russia. For Iran, Syria is also an important and strategic gravity center of resistance against Israel and the West in the region. Therefore, the fall of the incumbent Syrian government in favor of a Western government will, by no means, be beneficial to strategic interests of Iran and Russia. This issue is important enough to prompt Russia to put up full-force presence in the Syrian developments despite its passive role in developments of other Middle Eastern countries, especially Libya. In the political sphere, Moscow has shown strong resistance to efforts made by the West – Arab – Turkish axis to bring about regime change in Syria. Moscow also categorically vetoed the UN Security Council’s resolution on Syria. On the other hand, at a time that European states, the United States, and Arab countries of the Persian Gulf have recalled their ambassadors from Syria, the Russians have sent their foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Mikhail Fradkov, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Office, to Syria for official meetings with President Bashar Assad.

In the military sphere, Russians have sent their Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier – with advanced Sukhoi 23 and MiG 29 warplanes, K A 27 gunships, as well as missile and submarine systems – to the Syrian territorial waters. In addition, they delivered Yakhont ballistic missiles as part of Bastion coastal defense system to Damascus to prove to the world that, unlike Libya, they are quite serious about developments in Syria. Military relations between Russia and Syria have been vast since the Cold War era. A large part of military technologies in Syria are originally Russian. At that time, relations between Syria and Moscow were at their best and Syria allowed Russia to establish a military base in Tartus port city. The base is still run by Russians and is among few points where the Russian military is directly present in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. Therefore, recent developments in Syria have provided a very good ground for further strengthening of military relations between Moscow and Damascus. On the other hand, a militarily powerful Syria will also be beneficial to Iran's interests as it will be very helpful in countering Israel’s threats. These developments, especially delivery of Yakhont missile defense system for countering Israel’s threats are also important in that delivery of the missile system to Syria has been a matter of controversy and dispute between Russian and Israeli officials since 2007.

Therefore, Russia’s approach to developments in Syria can be compared in terms of sensitivity and the type and intensity of reaction to Moscow’s approach to developments in its peripheral regions. That approach has already led to adoption of strong positions on the expansion of NATO toward Central Asia and Caucasus; establishment of NATO’s missile shield in Eastern Europe; proposed membership of Georgia in NATO; and breakout of colored revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. In August 2008, the Russians also proved that they will not hesitate to resort to the military in order to protect their strategic interests. Russia’s measures in the case of Syria also prove that it attaches the same degree of importance to Syria that is attached to Moscow’s immediate neighborhood. In fact, if Moscow gave up its role in Syria, it would have to say goodbye to the Middle East, in favor of the West, for good and ever. This will be in stark contrast to large-scale and strategic interests of Moscow. The Russia’s concern is totally in line with Iran's worries about developments in the Middle East, especially expansion of the West’s regional clout and weakening of Syria’s standing in the face of Israel.

Another common ground between Iran and Russia is their support for Assad’s government and the political reforms introduced by the Syrian regime. Unlike the Arab League, Turkey and Western countries which are staunch supporters of regime change in Syria, Iran and Russia are strongly against it and support controlled political reforms. The main concern of both Iran and Russia is internationalization of the situation in Syria, like what happened in the case of Libya. The remarks made by Russia’s permanent representative to the Security Council, Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin, clearly prove this fact. Opposing Morocco’s proposed resolution which called on Assad to step down and transfer power to his vice president, Churkin noted that the Security Council was not a place to appoint or dismiss country leaders. He added that a new framework should be set for the Security Council to prevent its members from trying to oust prime ministers or presidents from power. Iran and Russia have, therefore, made frequent efforts to convince Assad to implement reforms, though they have not been generally successful because Syria’s opposition figures are opposed to Syrian government’s reforms.

The two countries’ vast economic interests in Syria are also a common cause of concern for Moscow and Tehran. As a country which has been under the West’s economic sanctions for long years, economic relations with Iran and Russia are the main source of economic development in Syria. Russia’s exports to Syria stood at over 1.1 billion dollars in 2010. According to Moscow Times, Russians have invested more than 4.19 billion dollars in Syria in 2009. These figures are in addition to four billion dollars of weapons that Russia has sold Syria. Widespread presence of the Russian oil and gas companies in Syria is also remarkable. Iran, on the other hand, has extensive economic relations with Syria as a result of vast political ties between Tehran and Damascus. Total volume of trade exchanges between the two countries hit 5 billion dollars in 2010. Iran and Syria have extensive relations in such areas as tourism, automobile industry, construction of power plants, as well as oil and gas industry. Syria’s unrest has had great negative impacts on economic activities of Iran and Russia in Syria over the last year and has slowed down, or at times stopped, those activities. Both countries are concerned about losing all their economic interests as a result of the overthrow of Assad’s government and its replacement with a Western-minded government which would take anti-Iran and anti-Russia stances. Therefore, economic considerations are of very high importance in determining common positions of Tehran and Moscow on developments in Syria and should be taken into account in any analysis of the ongoing developments.

The last common concern for Iran and Russia is the concern about possible empowerment of radical Islamic figures affiliated with Salafi and Wahhabi currents in Syria. An important part of the opposition to the Syrian government comes from such political currents which enjoy powerful support of regional Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Russia is already familiar with Salafi and Wahhabi approaches in Northern Caucasus, especially Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Daghistan. Iran is also well aware about anti-Iranian and anti-Shia tendencies of these currents. As a result, in addition to concerns about strengthening of Western tendencies in the country, Iran and Russia also feel greatly threatened by strengthening of Salafi and Wahhabi currents and this issue is another reason why their positions on developments in Syria are so close.

Syria is considered by both Iran and Russia as the most important strategic foothold in the Middle East through which they are able to influence political developments in the whole region, especially in Palestine and Israel. The two countries’ large-scale strategic considerations with regard to the West’s developing influence in the Arab world, military and economic ties, as well as concerns about Western or Salafi currents snatching power in Syria has brought their positions on Syria close. It is very unlikely that the West would go for military intervention in Syria without coordination and consent of Russia. If Moscow succeeds in curbing international pressure against Syria in the Security Council and paves the way for reforms and dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition, one may expect that Iran's and Russia’s interests will be met by preserving Assad’s government to implement reforms without any need to foreign intervention. However, if the West decides with support from Turkey and Arab countries to ignore Russia’s considerations and embark on military intervention in Syria with the final result of regime change in that country, Iran and Russia will be facing dire conditions in the region. In addition to drastic geopolitical changes in the whole region, it would also be very difficult for both countries to try to establish ties with the future Syrian government which will be dominated by a combination of Western-minded and Salafi politicians. In the light of such conditions, Iran and Russia seem to be experiencing one of the most sensitive stages in their bilateral relations which can turn into a tough test for the two countries’ strategic collaboration.

[Benny B]

Syria - how should the West react?



As thousands of Syrians flee from the violence into neighbouring Turkey, the lack of response from the West is in stark contrast to its reaction to events in Libya. So why is that?

Euronews has been speaking to Majed Nehmé, who runs the French magazine Afrique Asie in Paris.

euronews:
How do you explain the silence of the international community in regard to what is going on in Syria?

Majed Nehmé:
In reality, the world and the media are not silent, but the so-called international community is unable to take any action in the case of Syria. This is because Syria, or the Syrian regime, is fully protected by Russia and China.

The Russian Prime Minister showed it clearly when he said “we fell into the trap when we didn’t use our veto in the UN with regard to Libya, and we consider Syria as a strategic issue relating to our interests. We will not repeat this mistake.”

That is what a lot of countries are doing now, including South Africa which said that it too would not repeat its mistake regarding Libya. There is no will from the major players on the international stage to overthrow the Syrian regime.

All they want is for the regime to change its policy and move away from Iran’s policies. This is because Syria is an essential player that serves the West’s interests indirectly through what is called ‘stability’, but it seems that this picture is changing now after the protests that erupted in Syria some weeks ago.

euronews:
What is the strategic importance of this country, that makes the world fearful of the fall of its regime?

Majed Nehmé:
Firstly, because this regime has cooperated at all levels with the West. We know, for instance, that after September 11, Syrian secret intelligence cooperated a lot with the CIA to combat the so-called ‘terrorism’. Syria also cooperated in the Iraqi issue.
This kind of cooperation is why Israel prefers such a regime. Since the signing of the Treaty of Golan in 1974, there hasn’t been even a single shot from Syria against Israel, which means that Israel doesn’t want regime change, and its replacement by a different regime whose policies it doesn’t know. So the enemy you know is better than the friend you don’t know. This is the logic behind the international community’s silence. In addition, Syria isn’t like Libya. It is a strategic ally to Russia, and Russia is willing to veto any resolution against Syrian interests.

euronews:
Do you think that the regime will fall if these protests continue?

Majed Nehmé:
I think that the regime will not fall as long as there’s no split within the Syrian army or within the security services. Syria will go through a very long period of uncertainties because, unlike what happened in Tunisia and Egypt, where we saw that the army was against the security forces, and in Tunisia the army moved against the president, these scenarios haven’t taken place yet. But if one of these scenarios happens, the Syrian regime will fall very quickly.

[Benny B]

Mitt Romney's Dangerous Foreign Policy Team: Nostalgic for Bush, Hellbent on War with Iran
By Alex Kane, AlterNet
May 2, 2012

It's hard to watch the Romney campaign with a straight face. Their latest crackup has one Romney adviser, John Lehman, warning of the “Soviet threat," and another, Pierre Prosper, complaining that the administration hasn't done enough to stand with Czechoslovakia. And those comments were hardly the first time we've heard throwbacks to the Cold War in this campaign. But don't laugh too hard—it might distract from the dangerous and discredited worldview Romney's foreign policy team is pushing.

Despite Obama’s expansion of the war in Afghanistan and his ramping up of drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, Romney claims Obama is a president who does not want “America to be the strongest nation on earth,” as he told an audience at the Citadel military college in South Carolina.

Romney’s persistent knocks on Obama’s foreign policy make clear that, while the economy will be the number-one issue this year, foreign policy will be a close runner-up. Behind Romney’s statements on world affairs is a group of close advisers whose views harken back to the Bush administration’s belligerent neoconservative brand of US foreign policy--not the best idea, considering how discredited it has become.

“The most striking aspect of Romney's approach to foreign policy is its lack of creativity -- its brazen willingness to recycle Bush-era talking points, attitudes, and of course personnel,” said Peter Certo, a researcher at Right Web, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies. “A Romney administration would be a fresh canvas for the neocons to paint on.”

As the general election season heats up, the noise from the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party will only grow louder. So here’s a look at three of the top advisers shaping Romney’s view of the world.

1. Eliot Cohen. Currently a professor at John Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Cohen was a founder of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and is now a special adviser for the Romney campaign. The Washington, DC-based PNAC was an influential incubator of neoconservative policy ideas whose members later went on to successfully push for the invasion of Iraq. He was a member of the Defense Policy Board, a Department of Defense advisory committee, while Donald Rumsfeld ran the show, and served as counselor to Condoleezza Rice while she was Secretary of State.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Cohen penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he labeled the US “war on terror” as “World War IV,” and advocated for the overthrow of both the Iranian and Iraqi governments. Cohen’s focus on Iran has not relented: in 2009, another op-ed in the Journal again called for the overthrow of the Iranian regime—which could only be accomplished by a full-scale invasion and occupation.

In October 2011, the prominent neoconservative wrote the foreword to a "white paper" laying out Romney’s foreign policy vision. It reads, in the words of journalist Max Blumenthal, as “a concoction of post-9/11 unilateralism and unvarnished neo-imperialism.”

The paper calls for boosting the military budget, and the assertion of US dominance in Asia against a “rising China.” The document also warns that the Arab Spring might become an “Arab winter” due to Iranian or Islamist influence, and criticizes the Obama administration’s plan on Iraq, which called for 3,000 troops to stay in the country after the expiration of the Status of Forces Agreement. The white paper called for 14,000-18,000 troops to stay on in the country. Today, only 150 American troops remain in Iraq.

On Iran, the country that Cohen and his neoconservative colleagues are currently targeting, the paper states: “U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with an understanding on Iran’s part that a military option to deal with their nuclear program remains on the table.” The paper also slams the “anti-American ‘Bolivarian’ movement across Latin America” and denounces the Obama administration’s alleged support for Manuel Zeyala, the Honduran president deposed in a coup in 2009.

All in all, the paper Cohen wrote the foreword to is an ode to US empire that pines for the Bush administration’s approach to international affairs. Having an official like Cohen figure so prominently in the campaign “represents a general refusal to repudiate the Bush administration's approach to intelligence gathering, its sunny view of the Iraq war, and its dismissive attitude toward the world community,” Right Web's Certo said. “It's a heavy nod to the ancien regime in an issue area that gets little attention from the public.”

2. Dan Senor. Well known for his past role as chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in American-occupied Iraq, Senor is closely linked to neoconservative policy circles. He is also currently a “special adviser” to Romney, and was a senior adviser for Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. Senor is a co-founder of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a PNAC-linked group that advocates for US pressure on Iran and a military solution to the crisis in Syria.

Senor has acted as one of Romney’s go-to men on Israel, a country Senor has close ties with. Senor is a former intern for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and still has ties to the lobby group. His sister, Wendy Singer, runs AIPAC's operations in Israel.

“He'll essentially be a Netanyahu guy inside the White House. He's going to be the AIPAC enforcer,” MJ Rosenberg, a prolific critic of AIPAC who used to work for the lobby, told AlterNet. Rosenberg also worked as chief of staff for Congressman Edward Feighan, D-Ohio while Senor was an intern there in the early 1990s. “You can't be an American and be closer to the right-wing part of Israel than Dan Senor is.”

Senor is the co-author of Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle, which lauds Israel’s economic progress while skirting mention of the Israeli occupation--an omission that, as the Jewish Daily Forward noted, aligned “nicely with recent public relations efforts by Israel to shift attention away from its problems and toward its achievements.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called Senor and co-author Saul Singer (Wendy Singer's husband) “perceptive writers,” and quipped at a 2009 speech to the Jewish Federations of North America that Israel “is the start-up nation.” And when Netanyahu wanted to get a message across to Romney fast--that Netanyahu had played “no role” in billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s decision to bankroll Newt Gingrich--he relayed a message to Senor, according to the New York Times.

Senor is a contributor to various media outlets. In July 2010, before scheduled talks between Obama and Netanyahu, Senor took to the Daily Beast to argue that Obama “must reassure Netanyahu” in order to head off a “train wreck” for Mideast diplomacy. The argument dovetails with the view pushed by the Israel lobby that there should be no “daylight” between the US and Israel, and that disagreements on policy should be aired in private.

In September 2011, Senor wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the president had “launched” an “offensive” against Israel after a March 2010 announcement of new settlements in Jerusalem. In the same op-ed, he lambasted the State Department for considering Jerusalem, a city under occupation, separate from Israel proper.

Clearly, Senor’s position is that the US should never put pressure on Israel, which is exactly the position Romney professes. At a December 2011 debate in Iowa, Romney stated: “If we disagree with [Israel], like this president has time and time again, we don't do it in public like he's done it, we do it in private. And we let the Israeli leadership describe what they believe the right course is going forward.”

3. Cofer Black. A former vice-chairman for the private security company Blackwater USA, Black has been involved with the Romney campaign since 2007, when he came on as a senior adviser on counterterrorism and national security.

Writing in the Daily Beast, the right-leaning national security reporter Eli Lake explained that Black was Romney’s “trusted envoy to the murky world of the U.S. intelligence community who is also treated like a close political aide.” According to Lake’s reporting, Black sets up intelligence briefings for Romney from former CIA officers, and used his contacts in the Egyptian and Israeli intelligence worlds to debrief Romney on events in the region.

As Lake notes, Black’s claim to fame as a CIA officer is that he did “much of the street work” that led to the apprehension of Carlos the Jackal. He was part of the CIA team that tracked bin Laden in the 1990s. Black, a 28-year CIA veteran who directed the agency’s counter-terror center from 1999-2002, also served during the Bush administration as State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, and resigned shortly after Bush’s 2004 reelection.

According to Jeremy Scahill’s book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army, Black played “an essential role in crafting and implementing the Bush administration’s counter-terror policies.” Specifically, Black played an integral part in the use of “extraordinary renditions,” the euphemism for the Bush administration’s program of kidnapping alleged terrorists and spiriting them off to secret CIA prisons around the world to be tortured.

In 2005, Black joined the Blackwater USA team, the well-connected private security company that has been derided as a “mercenary” group, as vice chairman. He stayed on until 2008, a year after Blackwater agents committed the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, an event that resulted in the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians.

Black's influence on Romney's views on torture is clear. In a 2007 debate, Romney was asked whether water-boarding was torture. His response was noncommittal, but noted that he gets advice on those questions “from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counter-terrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.” In November 2011, Romney advisers made clear that the candidate does not believe that water-boarding is torture.

[Mattyh7688]

Awesome failed thread, which your pathetic self keeps bumping in hopes people will think you have any idea what is going on in the world, outside Obama's cock in your mouth.

[Irongrip400]

To answer your question, yes, and a good one.

[Frank Clairmonte]

Syria is independent country. Syrian nation must decide their future on their own.

West is portraying rebels terrorists as fighters for democracy same as Lybia one year ago.

But how many of these scumbags are from other countries? They have nothing to do with Syria.

Same old story, send terrorists to other country, call them fighters for democracy. Propaganda running on full throttle and here we go. People believe what they watch in TV and government get support.

Romney or what his name is nothing more than puppet. It˙s really sad to see how world is going today.

[2ND COMING]

Awesome failed thread, which your pathetic self keeps bumping in hopes people will think you have any idea what is going on in the world, outside Obama's cock in your mouth.

Noobs bringing the heat.

I think you're ready for the big leagues.

[Shockwave]

Syria is independent country. Syrian nation must decide their future on their own.

West is portraying rebels terrorists as fighters for democracy same as Lybia one year ago.

But how many of these scumbags are from other countries? They have nothing to do with Syria.

Same old story, send terrorists to other country, call them fighters for democracy. Propaganda running on full throttle and here we go. People believe what they watch in TV and government get support.

Romney or what his name is nothing more than puppet. It˙s really sad to see how world is going today.

I figured you'd know better than this, terrorists are only terrorists when they threaten a democracy/ally/interest of ours.
Otherwise, they're freedom fighters.
Derp.

[bighead]

I figured you'd know better than this, terrorists are only terrorists when they threaten a democracy/ally/interest of ours.
Otherwise, they're freedom fighters.
Derp.

   true.

[bike nut]

I didn't read Benny "Gubment Cheese" B's lameass posts....but if any Syrian wants to come to the U.S. and shoot BB between the eyes I'll lend them a gun and pay for their plane ticket.