Edited by Gillian Palmer
It is difficult to understand American policy in the Middle East. The Obama administration refuses to support Syrian revolutionaries despite all the crimes committed by al-Assad, fearing that those arms might fall into “unsafe” hands, but Washington shows no fear in arming the Iraqi regime, which has allied itself with Tehran.
Washington refuses to arm the Syrian revolutionaries, fearing that those arms might reach Jihadis and possible terrorists and thereby undermine the security of the entire region, or so say the Americans. But at the same time, we find Washington announcing an enormous plan to arm the current regime in Iraq, which Washington knows is completely under Iranian control. So why doesn’t America fear those arms, or any related technology, falling into the hands of Tehran, who threatens all American interests in the region?
The current American administration is aware, or one could assume so, that Baghdad is an important stage for the Iranians, one which Tehran hopes to use as an outlet to break the economic embargo they are currently facing. There are many American reports that indicate that Iran is using Iraq to support the al-Assad regime in Syria financially and militarily, including sending officers and much more. So how does America arm the current Iraqi regime with the most destructive weapons available, knowing that the Iranians will take them whenever they want, while refusing to arm the Syrian revolutionaries who are facing an oppressive regime that does not hesitate to use aircraft and heavy weapons against them, especially given that the Syrian revolutionaries have taken the peaceful approach throughout their revolution, never taking up arms until they were forced to under the weight of al-Assad’s violence, itself a product of Russian and Iranian support?
The absurdity of the American position doesn’t stop there. Washington has protested against France’s call to recognize a temporary Syrian government, claiming that this is a hasty decision and we must wait until the Syrian opposition is united and represents all parties, including the Alawites and Baathists. Of course this is a reasonable and justifiable expectation, since it ensures a better future for the Syrian state and society. However, one is amazed the Washington can apply this stipulation to Syria while it continues to support the current Iraqi regime, despite the fact that al-Malaki is still actively eradicating the Iraqi Baathists and trying to expel his Sunni deputy, Tariq al-Hashimi — and all the while, he defends the Baathist regime in Syria! So why must non-exclusion be a pre-condition in the case of Syria if it is not addressed at all in the case of al-Maliki in Iraq? And why are they preventing the arming of Syrian revolutionaries out of fear that weapons might fall into the wrong hands if no one is worried about the weapons sold to Iraq reaching Iran?
These are reasonable questions. Will Washington respond to these contradictions, or is the American administration not interested at all in its contradictions toward the region, and Syria in particular?
the answer is simple: politicians say sth but do another thing. so do not ask them about their words, their deeds are different!