Neocons Promote War on Syria: Drone and Cruise Missile Strikes to Take Out Assad
4 August 2016
Timothy Alexander Guzman
In an opinion piece written by Andrew J. Tabler, a Martin J. Gross fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) along with Dennis B. Ross also a William Davidson Distinguished Fellow at the institute titled ‘The Case for (Finally) Bombing Assad’ calls for limited “drone and cruise missile strikes” against the government of Bashar al-Assad. Dennis B. Ross served as the Director of Policy Planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush and a special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton then under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a special adviser for the Persian Gulf (Iran)and Southwest Asia. Ross is also part of the “Israeli Lobby” in Washington so it is no surprise with the content of the article coming from The New York Times is advocating that the Obama administration or the next elected president come this January 1st “bomb” Syrian government forces and President Bashar al-Assad. Israel would accept Ross and Tabler’s assessment since Syria is allied with Iran and Hezbollah. They claim that limited drone and cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government would “make Mr. Assad behave.“ According to The New York Times Op-Ed article:
Ross and Tabler claim that ‘the Nusra Front’ were targeted for attacks by Russia, Iran (no surprise Ross mentions Iran as a danger every chance he gets, besides he is a lobbyist for Israel) and even the U.S. where there were opposition groups stationed with “some possible Nusra presence” in the same areas. Ross wants all parties to stop targeting “opposition groups” (who in reality are associated with various terrorist organizations) and focus on the Syrian government forces instead:
What is absurd about the article is that it claims that the Syrian government and Hezbollah will force al-Nusrah and other terror groups to flee into neighboring Turkey and eventually the West:
The U.S. war against Syria along with its clear support of various Terrorists groups has already led to terrorist attacks in Turkey and Western Europe. The partial truce that began in February and ended in May, Ross and Tabler claim that Russia took advantage and bombed “Syrian rebel forces” instead of ISIS and al-Nusra terrorists and even called it a violation:
During the partial truce, Russia took advantage of similar loopholes that permitted it and the Assad government to keep fighting the non-Nusra and non-Islamic State opposition. Such violations have allowed Mr. Assad and his allies to gain territory and besiege Aleppo
In fact, on May 24th, RT News reported that Russia and Syrian government forces has eliminated more than 35% of the Islamic state fighters according to the deputy head of Russia’s top security body, Evgeny Lukyanov at the VII international security summit:
“We estimate that at the beginning of our operation Al-Nusra Front and Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL] possessed about 80,000 fighters, of whom 28,000 (35 percent) have already been eliminated. This is [the result of] our actions together with the Syrian Army”
Ross and Tabler do have a solution that will not allow ISIS and al-Nusrah to expand into neighboring countries and that is by attacking the Syrian government:
There is an alternative: Punish the Syrian government for violating the truce by using drones and cruise missiles to hit the Syrian military’s airfields, bases and artillery positions where no Russian troops are present
The military solution promoted by the New York Times to target the Syrian government and its military forces and avoid Russian troops will be a disaster for Washington. First, Syrian and Russian forces are fighting together which would lead to casualties on both sides if the U.S. were to conduct drone or cruise missile strikes within Syrian government–held territories. Second, without the Assad government in power that holds Syria together would result in the “break-up” of Syria into several areas which would then be controlled by terrorist organizations including the Islamic state. Currently, a battle between the Syrian government forces that is surrounding the city of Aleppo in an attempt to defeat the Western-backed rebels who continue their attacks on government –controlled areas in and around Aleppo.
Ross and Tabler’s assessment on what Washington should do in Syria has imperial motives to destroy, destabilize and then control Syria and then target Hezbollah and eventually Iran. Israel would be the dominant power in the Middle East. One of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails from December 31st, 2012 was released earlier this year by Wikileaks proved that the then-Secretary of State under the Obama administration wanted to use military force to overthrow the Assad government from the start of the civil war and strengthen Israel’s security apparatus:
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack-if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel with its proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran’s program has crossed an unaccepted threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria
Hillary Clinton’s email not only confirms that the Whitehouse sought to remove Assad by force; it also confirms (although the world already knew thanks to the nuclear weapons whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu) that Israel has a nuclear monopoly? Or rather, a nuclear weapons monopoly?
Dennis B. Ross, Andrew J. Tabler and the New York Times is providing the necessary propaganda for a future Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency (if she either wins or steals the election) to declare war on the Syrian government the minute she gets into the Whitehouse. Ross supported the Iraq war which has destroyed the country. The war on Iraq has led to the foundation of terrorism and to the creation of various terrorist groups in the Middle East and now Ross and company is advocating that Washington order drone and cruise missile strikes against the Syrian government. This is advice from a man who supported the 2003 war on Iraq and signed on the “Neocon” Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that promoted the idea that the U.S. should play a leading role in the world as an Imperial power. The New York Times is already guilty of promoting war in the past; remember the name, Judith Miller?