"...Yes, Assad’s minority Alawite Muslim regime is a key ally of Iran’s revolutionary Shiite-supremacist government. That does not alter the stubborn fact that the anti-Assad “opposition groups” are dominated by Sunni supremacists. Stubborn facts cannot be evaded by clever labeling — “opposition groups” in Syria having become the euphemism du jour that “rebels” was in Libya, “peaceful protesters” in Egypt, “uprisings” in Tunisia, and so on. Nor can we confidently assert any longer that what is bad for Iran must be good for us. Threats are dynamic, and much has changed in the last decade. ..."
1 comment:
This quote is brilliant and the article, while containing much that is questionable (e.g., lumping Turkey and Saudi Arabia), is well worth reading. But the two simple bottom lines of the quote (1. threats are dynamic and 2. US interests may be the same as those of any given actor - e.g., Iran, Israel - or not; it depends) are lessons that must be learned by US policymakers to defend our national interest. Unfortunately, even these two bottom lines seem already far beyond the abilities of decision-makers to grasp, so there is little chance of them mastering the details where the devil hides.
Most in Washington practice the following: when in doubt, act. Instead, they should copy doctors: when in doubt, cause no harm.
Post a Comment