War With Syria Signifies A War With Iran: Resolution 65
On April 17th, while the entire U.S. media was focused on the chase for Dzokhar Tsarnaev, the 2nd terrorist suspect in the Boston Marathon attacks, the Senate introduced Resolution 65, affirming that the U.S. will fully back Israel in the instance of war with Iran.
The Resolution goes beyond affirming U.S. commitment in preventing a nuclear Iran. It ensures that the United States will ‘authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.’ Meaning, the U.S. will go to war with Iran if Israel does.
This resolution comes after U.S. President Barack Obama stated in August, 2012 that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government will constitute a “red line” for military intervention. The President stated:
“We have been very clear to the (Bashar Assad) regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
So what does Resolution 65 have to do with Syria? Simple: On February 15, 2005, Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense treaty and established a joint Iranian-Syrian Supreme Defense Commission to institutionalize long-term military cooperation. If Syria were to be involved in war, Iran would get involved too. Basically, a war with Syria means a war with Iran, or vice versa.
Americans are overwhelmingly against a war with Iran, but are not sure about Syria, and probably will be sympathetic to the opposition if Assad is portrayed as a crazed, murderous dictator who uses chemical weapons on his people, just as Saddam Hussein did.
Therefore, if the U.S. gets involved with Syria, either directly or through one of its regional allies, such as Israel or Turkey, this would push Iran to defend Syria, based on the 2005 treaty, and this move would give the U.S. the right to attack Iran as well. Of course, all for self defense/retaliation and for protecting the poor civilians.
The problem with this scenario is that now the U.N. says Syrian rebels are the ones actually using the chemical weapons on civilians, not the Syrian government. The United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria spokeswoman Carla Del Ponte said the commission has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, but they have testimony that the sarin gas was used by the rebels, not the government.
Further complicating the issue of chemical weapons’ use, in January of this year, Iran’s State Media Press TV accused Qatar, in coordination with the U.K., of framing the Syrian government by providing chemical weapons to opposition groups; basically, using chemical weapons but blaming it on Assad. The report claims the plot was fully approved by D.C.
It is worth mentioning that Iran has the world’s 4th largest proven oil reserve and is the 3rd largest producer of natural gas.
In war games, it is difficult to know who is telling the truth and what the actual intent is. But, considering the latest reports indicating the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could reach over $6 trillion, it would be wise for Americans to question everything, before we are dragged into another war. I hope this time, we will insist on evidence and restraint, before suffering the dire consequences of another war. Please remember, we are still paying for the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.
via The Progressive Press
So what does Resolution 65 have anything to do with Syria? Simple: On February 15, 2005,… http://t.co/83ygCpQNlQ
“So what does Resolution 65 have anything to do with Syria? Simple: On February 15, 2005, Iran and Syria signed a… http://t.co/2Zw6WJ4G05