Amber light for Syria?
On Tuesday, Dan posted on Mark Levey's article about possible US/Israeli action against Iran. At risk of presenting the image that I disagree with everything he says (I really don't) I feel a few comments are in order.
Firstly I am very dubious about assertions that the US is likely to launch another Iraq-style invasion in the short to medium-term. The US has bitten off more than it can chew in Iraq and as long as it remains bogged down there, cannot mobilise sufficient forces to carry out another invasion along similar lines. This doesn't preclude intervention in more subtle ways. Milan Rai argues that this may well mean a covert destabilisation attempt. Levey gives an idea of what can be expected in the article, noting that elements in the Bush Administration had sought to aid dissident groups, but been unable to find any credible groups to support.
I'm also not entirely convinced that Iran is at the top of the list of targets. Certainly Israeli hawks are gunning for it and US rhetoric suggests that conflict is a possibility, but there are other possibilities. Although it has attracted minimal attention, the US also seems to have its eyes set on Syria. Recall the noises made about the country shortly after the end of the first phase of the Iraq War. This, coupled with the passing of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 and UN Security Council Resolution 1559, suggests that action against the country is a very real possibility, although what form this could take remains unclear. In some ways belligerence against Syria is more worrying, as it seems to be a bipartisan issue - Kerry co-sponsored the Syria Accountability Act, for instance.
Firstly I am very dubious about assertions that the US is likely to launch another Iraq-style invasion in the short to medium-term. The US has bitten off more than it can chew in Iraq and as long as it remains bogged down there, cannot mobilise sufficient forces to carry out another invasion along similar lines. This doesn't preclude intervention in more subtle ways. Milan Rai argues that this may well mean a covert destabilisation attempt. Levey gives an idea of what can be expected in the article, noting that elements in the Bush Administration had sought to aid dissident groups, but been unable to find any credible groups to support.
I'm also not entirely convinced that Iran is at the top of the list of targets. Certainly Israeli hawks are gunning for it and US rhetoric suggests that conflict is a possibility, but there are other possibilities. Although it has attracted minimal attention, the US also seems to have its eyes set on Syria. Recall the noises made about the country shortly after the end of the first phase of the Iraq War. This, coupled with the passing of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 and UN Security Council Resolution 1559, suggests that action against the country is a very real possibility, although what form this could take remains unclear. In some ways belligerence against Syria is more worrying, as it seems to be a bipartisan issue - Kerry co-sponsored the Syria Accountability Act, for instance.
posted by Disillusioned kid at 3:13 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home