The headlines out of Syria remain virtually the same as they have for almost a year now: protests, followed by security forces firing into the crowd. Perhaps we should be surprised that more members of the military haven’t defected rather than shoot their own people – for all we know, lots have – but the rest has become a dog bites man story, sadly enough.
While the UN General Assembly issued a formal condemnation and European leaders prepare more sanctions, in the US, the neocon government-in-exile wants to use this opportunity to start another war, at least by arming the Syrian rebels (though they probably couldn’t explain to you who the Syrian rebels are). In order to gin this up to a sufficient level, they’ve taken to associating the Syrian regime with Iran:
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued Monday that Iran is “already supplying” military assistance to the Syrian regime, and said the United States must quickly resolve to aid the opposition forces in the country.
“The Iranians are already there. They’re already there. All reports confirm that. They’re already supplying arms and equipment to Bashar al-Assad, as are the Russians supplying arms,” said McCain on CBS News Monday.
“Right now it’s an asymmetric situation with Bashar al-Assad receiving equipment and actual physical help from Iran, Russia and the Syrian rebels not receiving equal assistance, or certainly not very much,” he added.
It’s true that Iranian warships are docked in a Syrian port, and it’s true that Iranian officials have rhetorically aided the regime by denouncing the McCain-led calls to arm the rebels. But nobody has reported the makeup of the cargo on those ships, and Iran has merely vowed retaliation (and said it would also come from Russia, who has ships in the same port) in the event of arming the rebels.
In other words, McCain is telling unverified half-truths, if not outright lying. And furthermore, he’s positioning Iran as the real source of unrest in Syria, as if the Iranians are repressing the Syrian people. I guess that gives the neocons more of a rationale to start a bombing campaign in Tehran.
The blowback from either arming Syria or engaging in military action there would be bad enough. But bootstrapping it to this tale of the Iranian menace in order to further war aims there is just completely irresponsible.




29 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Pentagon is saying Iranian ships did not dock in Syria.
The U.S. is already arming Syrian rebels.
Wasn’t that the point of getting rid of Gaddafi so that U.S. could send AQI and Gaddafi weapons to destabilize Syria?
Note that U.S. & Ayman al-Zawahiri are on the same side.
How about this time if we just arm the old bastards in congress and send them overseas. If they want bloodshed so bad it seems appropriate that some of the blood should be theirs.
Isn’t enough that McCain and the warbots were as full of shit as a Thanksgiving turkey about all of Saddam’s Al Queada camps; the yellowcake hunt; the WMD’s…With these assholes, there is no accountability for being a pack of bloody-handed liars.
They just keep on going with it, like the damn bunny.
Astute observations, as usual, eCAHN. Maybe while John “Crash” McCain and his girlfriend Lindsey are channeling their inner neocon, they’ll advocate arming the oppressed citizens of Bahrain, the West Bank, or Gaza.
For some time we’ve been told that these peaceful deminstrators were being attacked and murdered by the Syrian government forces. Has the government captured Homs yet? If not how are these unarmed demonistrators keeping them out and even if they have captured it why did it take so long?
I would think that at this point news from the middle east would be looked at with quite a bit of disbeleaf given what happened in Libya. But appearnetly not.
It’s only a matter of time before ondelette appears to post multiple comments in defense of McCain’s ill conceived proposals and champion the cause of the “rebels”. In 5, 4, 3, 2, ….
I’ve never seen a losing presidential candidate become as bitter as this guy in the wake of his defeat.
r2p! r2p! r2p!
Or, just another excuse for bombing or otherwise killing anyone at random designated as enemy-du-jour.
“…some of the blood should be theirs.” Seconded!
You got that right! Expend blood and treasure to protect whose interests? This is getting real old……
He REALLY took it personally. Ya’ think because he’s now the answer to this trivia question:
Who did Barack Obama defeat in the 2008 election to become the first black president?
I don’t think John McCain EVER saw a war he didn’t like.
Suppose he gets any money from the “military industrial complex”???
Boy, was Ike ever right.
Random but related Q. What % of humanitarian NGOs are CIA fronts?
It’ll rank somewhere near “Who was George McGovern’s running mate after Tom Eagleton left the ticket?”
Libya was a success, dontcha know. No troops on the ground, over in a matter of months, out of the headlines.
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. *covers eyes* I don’t want to hear/see about Libyans murdering each other. It’s like: the surge worked, the surge worked, the surge worked.
The weapons are coming out of Iraqi there were a few left over that are being shipped in. The main reason to take down Syria is it will be easier in the future to take down Iran. It’s pretty simple neo-conn plan and who cares about the citizens of said nations.
I think it will be #2 just below “Who was the only president to serve two non-successive terms?”
Re your ?: Everybody knows it…….what’s his name….you know………Kennedy in-law…….???????? ……Peter Lawford.
Weapons are also coming from Libya as are AQI who went home to Libya after “the surge worked.” (TM)
I forget what the transit route is; maybe thru Saudi Arabia.
I’ll look for link on antiwar.com.
Well the oil flowing that all they care about and the citizen killing citizens will that will end some day. Yep like you said everything is good;)
Wy can;t we just dress up s ome Navy Seals like Syrians and slip them into the palace and “take out” the sonofabitch???? Then have Obama deny the hell out of it. He’s pretty good at fibbing.
Yep and do you think a few AQI might be in Syria. A lot of heavely armed people came into the country on day one with arms and $100.00 bills. What a suprise.
Back to outside.
I heard it on antiwar.com not too long after the Syrian uprisings started. I can’t find the link, though.
Cause were looking forward
While scanning antiwar.com for Syrian coverage, I came across this interesting quote
Link.
I’m surprised that McCain isn’t trying to convince the US/NATO that Syria has vast undiscovered oil reserves. That would do the trick.
I’m not convinced that there isn’t oil everywhere (except Israel) in the ME. Palast made the case that while the Brits controlled Iraq, they specifically did not explore the Sunni triangle which he (Palast) claims to have picked up info that there are larger reserves than Ghawar. Objective to controlling oil is to keep it off the market, since oil corps make higher profits on high prices, not, ya know, actually mining & producing it.
I’m not sure why Saddam Hussein didn’t do the E&P in the Sunni triangle if that were the case. Maybe it would have empowered some rival tribe? Maybe sanctions made it in his interest not to look? I have no idea.
But now that my suspicions are awake, and the Europeans controlled ME for so long during the oil development days, there might be a lot more oil there than we dubes outside the PTB sphere are allowed to know about. Who knows what deals were made and what their legacies are.
Just an hypothesis to keep in mind.
I remember reading about this on SyrianCommnets in the comments section
It was someone like Pepe Escobar or Gareth Porter who Scott Horton interviewed.
There’s a lot of external factors in play too…! The Russians have the Admiral Kuzsetnov Carrier Group floating around the Eastern Med. near their Naval Base in Tartus, Syria, and, two Iranian Frigates sailed through the Suez and docked there…! The Carrier Fighter group could intercept Israeli/Nato/US aircraft over Syria…!