Obama Could Set the Middle East Ablaze
Published in El Nuevo Diario
(Nicaragua) on 5 September 2013
by Esteban Solís (link to original)
(Nicaragua) on 5 September 2013
by Esteban Solís (link to original)
Translated from
by Sean P. Hunter.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
It is possible that by the time these lines are read the missiles will have already started falling on Syria in an interventionist war — with the United States at the forefront, as always — to “punish” Syrian president Bashar Assad for having ordered, according to the invaders’ intelligence reports, the use of chemical weapons against his own people.
The world realizes that the United States has historically justified interventions by inventing excuses. Typical false flag operations — hence the reticence of the British, French and even the American leaders themselves to embark on an armed confrontation. On Monday, Assad warned during an interview with Le Figaro that the Middle East is a powder keg to which a fire is getting closer. He claims that a military intervention will unleash a regional war.
The Syrian president is correct. The borders in that zone are a hotbed. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel are highly explosive. Russia and China also have a lot to say in this complex geopolitical board, where the military industry of the powers of any political or ideological color rub their hands together, anticipating the highest profit without a care that dozens, hundreds or thousands of civilians are destroyed by rockets launched from gigantic warships cruising in the Mediterranean and from the air raids deployed by leaders who believe they have the right to “punish” at their pleasure whoever dares to defy them.
There are other Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which, according to the foreign press, have financed the war that the Syrian rebels and mercenaries have carried out for the past two years in an attempt to overthrow Assad. In the background, the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites could have played a role in the theater of operations. The Arab nations that support the war against the Syrian president are of the Sunni majority, or at least their monarchs belong to that branch of Islam. The family of Bashar Assad is Alawite, identified with Shiites.
Up to now, there has been no overwhelming reason to justify aggression against Syria. United States President Barack Obama doesn’t want to pay the consequences of dragging his country into another war alone and therefore has asked for support from Congress to share the costs.
I have no doubt that Obama will give the order to attack. I wish I were wrong. Nevertheless, what will happen not just in Syria but in the entire Middle East after the first attack? Has President Obama weighed the consequences of his decision?
Some who understand the matter say that Congress will make it difficult for the president, due to next year being an election year. Representatives don’t want to lose the chance to be re-elected, taking into account that the majority of Americans do not support the intervention.
“We will defend ourselves; we will surprise the world,” said the Syrian foreign minister a few days ago of an eventual attack against his country. Important world leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin have requested “prudence,” and Beijing has said that the Western powers have jumped to conclusions on the use of chemical weapons.
Latin American leaders such as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and Cristina Fernández of Argentina, among others, have publicly rejected an intervention. Along the same lines as Assad, Russian Minister of Foreign Relations Sergey Lavrov recently said that a military intervention would be “catastrophic for the countries of the Middle East and North Africa.” Surely, he speaks of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
Will Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, find the allies he seeks to make war, or will the United States push the button on its own in order to “punish” Assad? Hopefully the American president will reconsider, as well as those who, like French President Francois Hollande, whose popularity — 26 percent — is the lowest of any French dignitary since 1958, are chomping at the bit to accompany the United States into this war. Perhaps Hollande thinks that is the way to drive up those negative ratings he’s received as a result of his disastrous management of the economy.
The world realizes that the United States has historically justified interventions by inventing excuses. Typical false flag operations — hence the reticence of the British, French and even the American leaders themselves to embark on an armed confrontation. On Monday, Assad warned during an interview with Le Figaro that the Middle East is a powder keg to which a fire is getting closer. He claims that a military intervention will unleash a regional war.
The Syrian president is correct. The borders in that zone are a hotbed. Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Israel are highly explosive. Russia and China also have a lot to say in this complex geopolitical board, where the military industry of the powers of any political or ideological color rub their hands together, anticipating the highest profit without a care that dozens, hundreds or thousands of civilians are destroyed by rockets launched from gigantic warships cruising in the Mediterranean and from the air raids deployed by leaders who believe they have the right to “punish” at their pleasure whoever dares to defy them.
There are other Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which, according to the foreign press, have financed the war that the Syrian rebels and mercenaries have carried out for the past two years in an attempt to overthrow Assad. In the background, the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiites could have played a role in the theater of operations. The Arab nations that support the war against the Syrian president are of the Sunni majority, or at least their monarchs belong to that branch of Islam. The family of Bashar Assad is Alawite, identified with Shiites.
Up to now, there has been no overwhelming reason to justify aggression against Syria. United States President Barack Obama doesn’t want to pay the consequences of dragging his country into another war alone and therefore has asked for support from Congress to share the costs.
I have no doubt that Obama will give the order to attack. I wish I were wrong. Nevertheless, what will happen not just in Syria but in the entire Middle East after the first attack? Has President Obama weighed the consequences of his decision?
Some who understand the matter say that Congress will make it difficult for the president, due to next year being an election year. Representatives don’t want to lose the chance to be re-elected, taking into account that the majority of Americans do not support the intervention.
“We will defend ourselves; we will surprise the world,” said the Syrian foreign minister a few days ago of an eventual attack against his country. Important world leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin have requested “prudence,” and Beijing has said that the Western powers have jumped to conclusions on the use of chemical weapons.
Latin American leaders such as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and Cristina Fernández of Argentina, among others, have publicly rejected an intervention. Along the same lines as Assad, Russian Minister of Foreign Relations Sergey Lavrov recently said that a military intervention would be “catastrophic for the countries of the Middle East and North Africa.” Surely, he speaks of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
Will Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, find the allies he seeks to make war, or will the United States push the button on its own in order to “punish” Assad? Hopefully the American president will reconsider, as well as those who, like French President Francois Hollande, whose popularity — 26 percent — is the lowest of any French dignitary since 1958, are chomping at the bit to accompany the United States into this war. Perhaps Hollande thinks that is the way to drive up those negative ratings he’s received as a result of his disastrous management of the economy.