Op-Ed: Obama's "Red Line" on Syria Bleeds into a "Calculus"
Mark LangfanThe writer, who writes on security issues, has created an original educational 3d Topographic Map System of Israel to facilitate clear understanding of the dangers facing Israel and its water supply. It has been studied by US lawmakers and can be seen at www.marklangfan.com.
In 1693, Sir Isaac Newton discovered calculus. Or, was it Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who discovered calculus? Calculus is so original and complicated, mathematicians still argue over who invented it.
In 2013, Obama warned of a "red line" if Assad used chemical weapons. But now that Assad has murdered dozens, if not hundreds, of people with Sarin chemical gas, Obama has discovered dimmer-switches and 'calculus' also (Newton didn't build that).
Obama's newly discovered Syrian "calculus" is yet another linguistic retreat for Obama to allow the Iranian stooge-puppet Assad to genocidally mass-murder Sunni Muslims. The same Obama who routed Mubarak out of power over bunch of unruly camels, gives Assad total "protection" over his chemicals weapons murder of civilians. Has Obama become a charter member of the "We love Assad-the genocidal mass murderer" fan club?
But before we get to the "Assad is for Lovers" club, Obama added the key caveat word "systematic" use of chemical weapons to his "red line." Obama, thereby, rendered his entire previous red line a nullity. What does "systematic" mean? Every third Monday? Two times a week? It's the new Justice Potter Stewart definition of "systematic": I'll know it when I see it. In short, with one word, "systematic," Obama vitiated his entire chemical weapon red line.
As for the Club, there are numerous strains to the Assad fan club. The first one is "his chemical weapons will fall into terrorist's hands." Well, Assad's chemicals are now, this very instant, in "terrorists' hands," - that is, principally his own hands. Assad is an arch-terrorist. And, the US State Department has listed Syria is listed as a "state terrorist." So, Assad's supporters are actively supporting a "state sponsor of terror."
But, "There has been calm on the Golan for 40 years." "Calm" you say? The Assads have been feeding Arafat, then Hizbullah with hundreds of thousands of deadly rockets in South Lebanon for over 35 years.
Since 1978, thousands of Israelis have died,and many thousands injured, from "Assad's quiet Golan" while fighting Assad-transported weapons. Israel hands have been tied while it has had to passively watch while the Assads have trucked the rockets from Syria to southern Lebanon. The Assads, and only the Assads, have turned Lebanon into an enemy of Israel and hostage of Iran. Without Assad, there would be no Hizbullah, and perhaps even peace with Lebanon. But Assad's fan club devotees still piously postulate: "The Golan is quiet."
The next even crazier theory is "Let them kill each other." Well, that's just grand. We want the Sunnis to help us take down Iran, but meanwhile, Israel and the US are idly watching Iran's stooge Assad Sarin Sunnis to death. After the Sunnis possibly lose in Syria because we didn't help them win, (especially where some pro-Israel "pundits" have publicly stated a policy of "a pox on both their houses," as the rebels are just as anti-Israel as Assad) the Sunnis are really going to just love us.
And, after such a catastrophe, the defeated Sunnis will be in no military condition to actually help us against Iran. In fact, the defeated Sunnis might even be forced to cast their lot with Iran. Genius strategy!
We pay lip-service that with the Sunnis we share a "common Iranian threat." But when the Sunnis are massacred by Iranian Shiite puppets, we just watch, and smile. Better still, the US will sell Saudi Arabia tens of billions of dollars of supposedly anti-Iran weapons that will only be available years from now as a "message to Iran." But Obama refuses to ship tens of millions of weapons to the Syrian rebels who will actually use them today against Iranian al Quds forces in Syria. I get it...
And don't forget, the reason Israel can't attack Iran is because "Syria and Hizbullah will launch a chemical missile blitz on Israeli cities with 50,000 rockets." A post-Assad Sunni government would love Israel to bomb Iran, but only after Israel promises to first bomb Hizbullah. Hizbullah without its Assad Syrian weapons' pipeline would be mincemeat in one night's aerial Israeli Air Force strike.
A post-Assad Syria might give Israel its airspace and cheer on an Israeli attack on Iran. So, the people who want to keep Assad, are only insuring Israel can't properly attack Iran because an Assad-Syria will surely massively counter-attack any Israeli Iran nuclear raid and kill hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Next, it's the "we don't want to arm terrorists." Well, the US happily donates sophisticated weapons to the Lebanese Army for free where the Iranian Hizbullah terrorists control those sophisticated weapons. But, the US won't sell unsophisticated weapons to people who will kill the Iranian Hizbullah with the unsophisticated weapons. Now that's a great policy!
Finally, there's the "al Qaeda will rule Syria" bogeyman. If anything, Syria will split into three discrete non-al Qaeda ethnic elements. But, apart from its practical falsity, the argument on its face is ludicrous. Now, Israel can't attack Syria despite its supply of Hizbullah because of some unknown mysterious reason. But with al Qaeda as the new Syrian "enemy," overnight Israel will become the frontline against al Qaeda, and the hero of the American public.
With a Syrian al Qaeda as Israel's enemy, the Israeli gloves can really come off. So, whereas now, Assad Syria has total "protection" from an Israeli attack, an al Qaeda Syria will be an Israeli open season on the terrorists behind 9/11. But allegedly pro-Israel "experts" posit it's better to have an untouchable Iranian stooge Assad as an Israeli enemy (that also arms Hizbullah), rather than an attackable Syrian al Qaeda! With a Syrian al Qaeda, the US Congress would probably even send Israel weapons for free.
But the real proof of Obama's sub rosa policy of arming Iran with a nuke is exactly because Obama's Syrian chemical weapons' "red line," has now, all of a sudden, turned into a 'calculus'." With Iran's nuclear weapons, Obama refuses to even state there is one of his utterly meaningless "red lines." So, Obama's real message to Iran is "Dear Iran, I won't even issue a fake nuke 'red line' to you, so you have my full 'green light' to build all the nukes you want. Just pretty please, don't use them 'systematically.'"