Political Map of the Middle East - image Ezilon.com
The Relationships in brief: Syria, Iran, Russia and China are friendly to one another. The Iranians aid Syria and Hezbollah allowing for attacks on Israel and Turkey. The U.S. strongest ally in the Middle East is Israel. There are conflicts in Egypt and ongoing problems in Lebanon. Al Queda and other terrorists groups operate throughout the Middle East. In short – the Middle East is a mess and the U.S. is “The West”, along with Europe.
On December 4, 2012 Voice of America reported that the U.S. had growing concerns that there was “movement” around Syria’s chemical weapons sites, and that the Assad Regime might use them against the Syrian people (VOA). This was followed by a suggestion from Russia that “The West is aware that its’ claims about the threat from the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons does not stand up to scrutiny, the Russian government has said.
Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov declared that there had been an exaggeration of the threat faced by Turkey to justify Nato’s deployment of Patriot missile batteries and the move will end up adding to the tension in the region; “any such deployment is creating the risk that these arms will be used” he maintained.(Belfast Telegraph)
However, an article from Foreign Policy suggests that the Obama Administration has had concerns regarding the Syrian use of Sarin, in general, since August of 2012 when it movement was detected around Syrian chemical weapons sites”
On the 5th of December the world is watching, including the Israeli’s who share a border with Syria. (APA News) NATO moved Patriot Missiles to Turkey to protect its airspace as there has been more than saber rattling between the two nations (WA Today).
On the 6th: According to the Saudi Gazette, Turkey knows where all of the Syrian Chemical Weapons are stored. Further: ““Assad has about 700 missiles... Now we know the exact location of all of them, how they are stored and who holds them,” Davutoglu was quoted as saying by the Sabah newspaper.
The comments emerged the day after NATO ministers approved Turkey’s request for deployment of Patriot missiles along its volatile border with Syria, a move that has angered Damascus and its allies.
Davutoglu said the international community feared possible attacks from Damascus against countries such as Turkey which were pushing for the toppling of the regime, if it felt the end was near.”>.(Saudi Gazette)
The U.S., including President Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton hadalong with NATO, warned Syria against using these chemical weapons.(New York Times)
It was then reported by NBC News that the Syrians had loaded these chemical weapons onto bombs.
Now, the Washington Post is reporting that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be meeting with the Russian envoy today.
Within days the Russian’s went from the “West exaggerating” to a hurried meeting, suggesting that the situation has become more unstable and the time for hubris is past.
The fact that Syria, long an aggressor with its ally Iran against Israel and it’s neighbors, has a regime with its back to the wall fighting a war with its own people which has been widely condemned,, and an ongoing conflict with Turkey to its north, the desperation may trigger the use of these chemical weapons against its own people. There should also be concern over the fact that this nation has an immense stockpile of chemical weapons, and that the danger may exist that the regime might also strike at its neighbors as well (Israel, Turkey).
What is telling is the speed in which the U.S. Administration has addressed the issue once there was confirmation through Intel that the weapons were loaded onto bombs. The U.S. has, since World War II, taken a larger role on the world stage when it comes to the protection of the innocent and the protection of key allies. Today, with the emphasis on the “West” and the threat of terrorism against the U.S. and it’s allies very real, there appears to be a continued need for the U.S. to continue in that particular role. Historically, the U.S. did not involve itself with other nations – the First President, George Washington, suggested that the United States stay out of conflicts outside its borders as the nation was in a stage of growth and had neither the finances nor the manpower to involve itself.
A side note: there are those who are starting to draw comparisons between President Obama and George W. Bush re: Weapons of Mass Destruction as a means to begin a war. In both cases, one might suggest that regardless of the fact the Intel is not necessarily perfect, that to do nothing might not only be immoral in the broadest sense, but also present a threat to the very basement from which those detractors of the aforementioned Presidents reside. It is not that any President seeks a war, the cost in human capital and to the taxpayer is too great a burden to do so recklessly. Therefore, to those who are drawing comparisons (as well as to those who railed against George W. Bush as if it were the Viet Nam War revisited) might be better served reading up on the use of said weapons since World War I. It is clearly unacceptable. Time to put partisanship aside, review the reports (there is little one can do to determine fact from fiction and that includes the Administration.) and pray that Assad seeks asylum outside Syria and that the stockpile of weapons is then destroyed by a willing and able coalition.
No comments:
Post a Comment