At this juncture, with the prospect of an American strike on Syria immanent, notwithstanding the overwhelming opposition of the American people,
strategic thinkers in Iran and Russia will be consulting. The Iranians will have to make a very serious decision; whether to wait for Russia to get up
to speed so that it can help resist American encroachment when it comes knocking in the Iranian province of "Kordestan", marked "A" on the
or . . . to fight its war with the Americans in Syria
and hopefully avoid a lot of fuss muss and bother at home.
The following news article reveals a bit of cloudy thinking on the part of the Iranians, in my opinion. They vow to support the Syrians "to the end"
but won't send troops or arms unless there is an "invasion".
I think this is extremely foolish . . . from a military standpoint.
They should be putting Iranian troops into Syria immediately. There is much advantage to fighting the Americans and NATO in the person of their
, rather than directly.
In my opinion, not to do so is a major strategic error. It is difficult to overstate this.
The following article from the Jerusalem Post
is very revealing of "mullah think" and "mullah speak", if it is accurate.
On Wednesday, 170 Iranian parliamentarians released a statement in support of Assad, and warned the US and Israel against attacking Syria. The
Iranian legislators warned that "any invasion of [Syria] will herald the collapse of the arrogant powers' tyrannical and cruel system," Fars
"If the Islamic Republic decides, we will be ready to sacrifice our lives beside our Syrian brothers against the (front)line of infidels and
oppressors," the statement said.
Despite the messages of support from Tehran, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehqan ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.
Meanwhile, even the mullahs themselves can't seem to make up their minds whose side they are on in Syria, if the following report is accurate. Can
there be disagreement among Iranian leaders as to where "the end" is for their support of Syria?
The controversy stems from a report by the unofficial ILNA news agency, which quoted the moderate ex-president as saying "the Syrian people who
were the target of a chemical attack by the authorities must now face the threat of foreign intervention."
But the agency quickly deleted from the quote the words "by the authorities," and the foreign ministry denied that Rafsanjani had said such a
But several conservative websites also took the opportunity to attack Rafsanjani.
One of them posted a video of a public meeting at which Rafsanjani is alleged to have made the comment. It was not possible to confirm that the
speaker on the video, shot from some distance on a mobile phone, was Rafsanjani but the voice sounds like his.
I don't know how anyone can doubt that the US State Department is more than capable of finding chinks in the Iranian diplomatic and strategic armor
and exploiting them.
One is led to wonder how serious and how united Iranians are on the subject of American hegemony in their region. It is a very important question.
Perhaps Rafsanjani is guilty, not of loose lips, but of "wisdom overflow". Maybe it is time for a marked change in Iranian foreign policy.
Just to give this post an ATS-style twist, I also can't help wonder if the new Iranian President is not already doing some kind of deal with "the
Great Satan" to be able to shed a crocodile tear as the Assad regime dies in Iran's arms, while preparing for a future of eating cucumber sandwiches
with Michelle and Barak in the White House garden.
edit on 5-9-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)