When Bible Prophecy Causes Whiplash . . .
Israel - Middle East
Friday, July 20, 2012
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
Nawaf Fares is Syria's former ambassador to Iraq and among the most prominent Syrian politicians to defect to the Syrian opposition so far, said that Assad's regime has begun collaborating with al-Qaeda militants.
Fares has been a loyal soldier for both Hafez Assad and his son and successor, Bashar Assad for thirty-four years. He has held senior positions in the ruling Ba’ath party and powerful security services, and served as governor in several provinces.
The problem for Fares is that the Assad regime has rivers of blood on its hands, and any high-ranking member of the regime over that period of time is certain to have his own hands stained by it.
So while Fares is in a position to know what he is talking about, he is also in a very tenuous position personally. The Syrian opposition includes many vengeful victims of the Assad regime -- it is in Fares interest to ingratiate himself with them.
Similarly, Fares' own personal survival now depends on the collapse of Assad's Ba'athist regime. If the regime survives, he is a dead man walking. So he has every reason to exaggerate.
In many ways, it is reminiscent of the last days of the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein. The rats start leaving when they perceive the ship is starting to sink.
With that disclaimer in place, the report, if true, is doubly disturbing because Assad's Alawite-dominated regime is Shi'ite whereas al-Qaeda's ideology is rooted in Sunni Islam. It is hard to come up with a Western comparative example.
Maybe a collaboration between Independent Baptists with the Jehovah's Witnesses? Even that doesn't come close, since independent Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses don’t kill each other when there are no shared enemies about.
But that is about as close, doctrinally speaking, as the Alwawites are to the Sunnis. So it isn't shared religious ideology that brings them together so much as it is a shared politicalideology of terror as a means to an end.
"al Qaeda is searching for space to move and means of support, the regime is looking for ways to terrorize the Syrian people," Fares told the BBC.
The last UN Human Rights Council report states unequivocally that crimes against humanity are being committed in Syria and that people are being tortured. The Council overwhelmingly passed a resolution describing the situation in Syria as “a man-made humanitarian disaster”.
But that is about as far is it will get.
Even the Arab League could not overlook the atrocities committed in Syria and moved to suspend the latter’s membership. Many Arab states downgraded their diplomatic relations with Syria. But that is about as far as they are willing to go.
At the United Nations General Assembly where Russia and China cannot use their vetoes to protect the Assad regime, as they have done at the Security Council; more than 137 countries voted for a General Assembly resolution condemning the Syrian regime’s violence.
The resolution expressed support for an Arab League transition plan that calls on President Assad to give up power, to hold early elections and form a “national unity government.”
But General Assembly resolutions are not binding and the UN has no power to enforce them. Only the Security Council can issue binding resolutions.
According to Fares, the idea that Assad would heed a GA resolution is a ridiculous pipe dream.
"It doesn’t occur to any Syrian, not only me, that Bashar al-Assad will let go of power through political interventions... He will be ousted only by force.”
He says the regime, if cornered further, "will not hesitate to use chemical weapons", and that they may have been "used partially in Homs".
Assessment:
"Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations, that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!" (Isaiah 17:12)
The allegations that chemical weapons may have already been used against some targets in Homs raises the ante considerably in the eyes of most Western leaders, with the exception of Barack Hussein Obama.
"Despite mounting fury from the Syrian rebels, who are seeking assistance for their efforts to overthrow the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, the White House has refused all requests for heavy weapons and intelligence support,reports the UK Telegraph.
“Basically the message is very clear; nothing is going to happen until after the election, in fact nothing will happen until after inauguration [Jan 2013]. And that is the same message coming from everyone, including the Turks and the Qataris,” said a Washington lobbyist for the group.
And to make none of those pesky foreign entanglements force the administration's hand, the US made clear in a message that was carried to London last week to its allies that it will not intervene.
That message was carried by Tom Donilon, the White House National Security Adviser believed responsible for all the Obama intelligence leaks.
"The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind." (Isaiah 17:13)
Abdulbaset Sieda, chairman of the official Syrian National Council, begged Obama not to abandon the Syrian rebels to save his own job.
"We want for America and the Western countries to carry out their responsibilities,” he said “With regard to America, specifically, we would like to say to President Obama that waiting for election day to make the right decision on Syria is unacceptable for the Syrians.
“We cannot understand that a superpower ignores the killing of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians because of an election campaign that a president may win or lose. That’s why we are saying there is work that must take place at the Security Council.”
Nothing can pass the Security Council unless the US, the Russians and the Chinese agree. So the Security Council route already pretty much leads to a dead end.
Since the Syrian National Council can't understand how America can stand by and watch as entire families are massacred in their homes by their own government, Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank in Washington, offers this helpful explanation.
“The reality is that the US appears to have no coherent foreign policy since the Arab Spring. It is not clear why we helped topple Gaddafi and we let Mubarak fall but we let Assad stay in power.
“The gruesome, cynical truth is that while Kofi Annan 'spins his wheels’ at the UN, there is a tacit understanding with Assad. He knows where his 'red lines’ are; if he keeps the massacres beneath a certain level, he knows the US will not do anything to intervene.”
I am among those that don't understand why we helped remove Ghaddafi but are taking a hands-off approach with Syria. There was no clear national interest in removing Ghadaffi.
On the other hand, preventing the use of chemical weapons in the Middle East is overwhelmingly in America's national interest, if only because of Syria's proximity to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.
But since America's national interests are secondary to Obama's personal political interests, we have to agree with Schanzer's assessment that the Assad regime has nothing to fear from the Obama regime.
Which leaves Israel to fend for itself. Speaking of Israel, let's look at the scorecard since Obama came to power in 2008.
- In 2008 Israel numbered Turkey among her most important allies. In 2012, Turkey is one of Israel's bitterest opponents.
- In 2008, Israel had been at peace with Egypt for more than three decades. In 2012 Israel is building a barrier fence to prevent cross border attacks from Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood seek ways to cancel the peace treaty.
- In 2008, Israel's peace treaty with Jordan looked unbreakable. In 2012, Jordan's Hashemite Kingdom is itself looking to forestall it's overthrow and a Muslim Brotherhood takeover by distancing itself from its peace treaty with Israel.
- In 2009, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected in a rigged election, it seemed that a popular revolt was about to bring down the Iranian regime. Instead of encouraging the revolt, Obama congratulated Ahmadinejad on his victory and Iran's student revolution collapsed.
- In 2012, the US has four carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf and is on the brink of war with the same regime Obama congratulated only three years before.
- In 2008, the US had friendly ties with the governments of Tunisia and Yemen. Ghaddafi had surrendered his nuclear program and was seeking friendlier ties with the West. We had friends in Egypt, were developing relations with Syria and had the trust of the Israeli people.
- In 2012, America is almost as alone as Israel is, but doesn't seem to realize it yet.
The probability that sanctions will bring down the Assad regime is somewhere between zero and none. The probability that Assad will start a regional war with Israel, probably by using chemical or biological weapons, in order to distract from the unrest at home is high.
The understanding that the Obama administration won't put anything ahead of its own best political interests means Israel's choices are limited to either responding after a promised gas attack or the pre-emptive destruction of the threat.
Since the Syrian government is known to have the largest chemical and biological missile arsenal in the Middle East and since it has the capability to deliver those warheads to any city in Israel, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, any preemptive strike against Syria would result in total destruction or risk a massive response with WMD.
"And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us." (Isaiah 17:14)
And we know what it means when we see these things begin to come to pass. It means looking up and listening for the Trumpet.
I think I'm getting a case of whiplash.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.