Sunday, February 05, 2012

Barack Obama and the United States destroying Syria for Israel


A basic outline of what is happening in Syria:

Israel would like to see Syria dismantled about the way Iraq was after 2003, for about the same reasons. Barack Obama, probably the most spectacular Uncle Tom in world history, has put the United States firmly behind this objective. The US program to dismantle Syria is being managed by US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, who reports to Hillary Clinton.

The United States has put its colonies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar behind Israel's objective for Syria. Those colonies are providing pro-opposition media and diplomatic coverage as well as funds and weapons for the opposition.

I don't have a good explanation for why Turkey is following Israel/the US/Saudi Arabia in trying to dismantle Syria. But it is. My best guess is that Erdogan expects his AKP political party to be rewarded with Saudi funds and that he hopes to ultimately see a pro-US partially democratic regime installed in Syria without too much destruction to his own country.

A partially democratic regime is essentially what Great Britain offered Egypt in 1922.
When at last the combined forces of the occupying army and the Interior Ministry were able to quell months of strikes and protests, the British were compelled to reconsider their position towards Egypt. The eventual outcome of that process was the unilateral decision in March 1922 to grant Egypt a qualified independence. Although the country would be governed thereafter as a constitutional monarchy, the British retained the right to intervene in any matters seen to affect the security of imperial communications, the interests and safety of foreigners on Egyptian soil, the threat of foreign invasion, or the status of Egypt's relationship with the Sudan.
A partially democratic regime is what the US is aiming for in Egypt today.
“ ‘Full civilian control’ is a little excessive, I think,” Mr. Carter said, after describing a meeting he had Tuesday with Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, leader of the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, or SCAF.
A partially democratic regime is what Hillary Clinton is calling for when she calls for "reforms" in the other US colonies of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Kuwait and others.

The basic US position, advanced by US officials such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and also more or less openly by Western commentators such as MJ Rosenberg and Juan Cole, is that the United States supports democracy in the Middle East if at all, then only if that "democracy" does not extend to popular control or accountability over issues the United States is most concerned with, particularly foreign policy related to Israel.

That's not really democracy, but it is good enough for Muslims or Arabs. This position is thoroughly and fundamentally racist (or bigoted against Muslim people, which is just as immoral) in the restrictions it would place over representation for hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims on behalf of fewer than six million Jewish people in Palestine. But that's the West for you. Even liberals in the West. That's Barack Obama for you.

As an aside, fortunately the people of Egypt at least have not committed the US' vision of partial democracy for their country and stand a good chance of ultimately thwarting US anti-democratic efforts.

Back to Syria: Russia would lose Tartus, a naval base that it has plans to expand, if the US successfully removes Assad in favor of a pro-US partially democratic regime. This would be a major strategic loss for Russia. Russia will resist this vigorously. It would be very hard for the Israel/US/Saudi alignment to make a credible commitment to Russia that it could retain Tartus in a post-Assad partially democratic Syria.

Iran did eventually benefit from the dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It would have benefited more if the transition had been graceful rather than chaotic and destructive. Iran has also put itself into good position to prevent the US from retaining permanent leverage over Iraqi foreign policy.

Iraq has been destroyed, and is not now able to execute any effective foreign policy in its region, but when it rebuilds it likely will by then be independent and outside of US control. Until Iraq has rebuilt, it poses as little threat to Israel as the governments under US control in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and others. This is all to say that while it has become conventional wisdom that Iran benefited from the US destruction of Iraq, in the short term, until Iraq has rebuilt, Israel has benefited as much or more. That is important to note because Israel can expect to benefit similarly if such an outcome results in Syria.

As in Iraq, Iran would prefer to see a graceful transition from an independent dictatorship to an independent democracy. Unlike Barack Obama and the people of the United States, the leaders and people of Iran do not disagree with most of the people of Syria about Israel, whether that country is legitimate or whether that country's security desires should take precedence over other regional issues. Unlike the US, Iran has no strategic or sentimental need that any democracy in Syria not represent the perceptions, sensibilities and values of the Syrian people.

If Syria is destroyed, it is likely that a government that would allow the US to control Syria's foreign policy can ultimately be prevented from holding power by Iran, Iraq and Russia. US hopes of the Syrian National Council's Burhan Ghalioun becoming Syria's Hosni Mubarak are likely to be as unsuccessful as the US' previous hopes that Chalabi or Allawi would be Iraq's Hosni Mubarak. But that does not mean that Israel would not expect to benefit from Syria's destruction in the process.

We have not reached the point regarding Syria that there is a question about a pro-US dictatorship or partially democratic regime taking hold. The pertinent question now is how much damage can Feltman's program do to Syria in the meantime. If a graceful transition to democracy can be accomplished, the damage will be minimal. But the United States opposes that as a democracy would disagree with Barack Obama on the issues the United States considers the most important in the region.

Instead Feltman's condition, reiterated by Obama, Clinton and the Saudis, that Assad relinquish power in favor of an armed insurrection before any election, is designed to be unreasonable to provide a pretext for the destruction of the country.

So here's what we know for the future: Ghalioun cannot win a civil war against Damascus with losses of life anywhere near as low as what we've seen so far in Syria putting down the opposition. For Ghalioun to take power would require losses far greater even than the tens of thousands who died in Libya's NATO-organized civil war.

It is unreasonable to expect, and we are not going to see, Assad cede power to a pro-US dictatorship claiming to hope at that point to start an 18 month transition period to partial democracy.

Instead, unfortunately, we are likely to see Feltman's program for the destruction of Syria proceed. Even worse than Iraq, where US troops bore at least a small part of the cost, in Syria, Israel, the US and the US' colonies are almost completely isolated from the destruction they are causing.

Addendum:

As further reading, I'd like to suggest two links that tell similar stories and include details I've left out:

UN shenanigans on Syria by Aisling Byrne

Exposed: The Arab Agenda in Syria by Pepe Escobar

30 comments:

Lidia said...

Zionists hate Syria for its help to Hamas, Hizballah and Iran. In Russian-language media of Israel there was, for ex, report of Lieberman going to USA to ask Obama to attack Syria even more. 

Arnold Evans said...

About Dermot's constant objection that Saudi Arabia is an independent country that is as hostile and as much a threat to Israel as it would be if it was democratic:

1) Dermot produced a link and Lidia produced a link that Dermot approves of.  Both links describing the danger that Saudi Arabia might fall under the control of anti-Western Islamists, and both links are clear that in that case Saudi Arabia would pose more danger to Zionism than it does currently.

Dermot obviously disagrees and thinks Saudi Arabia is already as much a threat as it could be, but no link supports this thesis of his, while his own link contradicts it.

2) The one link that actually had the word threat described the threat the pro-US monarchy poses as minimal.  Minimal means the last possible.  If zero is possible, minimal means zero.  In other words, the one link that uses the word threat argues the exact opposite of what Dermot argues.

3) Dermot argues that if Saudi Arabia was not independent it would have lowered oil prices when Bush asked.  I'm waiting for a link describing this episode but it so far is not clear that Saudi Arabia could have but did not lower oil prices.  It has been close to capacity for some time.

Either way, that would be a small token measure of independence, for example compared to keeping the US as its main arms supplier while the US has an explicit commitment that Israel, a country that spends about 40% as much as it on weapons must have a military advantage over Saudi Arabia and every other country in Saudi Arabia's region put together.

4) Dermot says Saudi Arabia went to war with Israel.  At least one of the wars there is a report that the Saudi monarch secretly communicated to the US that it would not really fight.  Saudi Arabia claims to have been at war with Israel and maybe was on paper.  A democratic Republic of Arabia would likely have behaved much differently - to the great detriment of Zionism - before, during and after those wars.

5) Lastly, if the dictatorship is just as hostile to Zionism as a democracy would be, Dermot is wasting his time trying to convince me.  He should convince Barack Obama.  If Barack Obama believed that, the US would a) call for democracy in Saudi Arabia b) publicly threaten, and carry out his threat, to reduce its support for the monarchy unless it transfers power to representative political bodies.

Barack Obama does not seem to find Dermot's arguments convincing.  For very good reasons.

Arnold Evans said...

I have to say that makes a lot of sense. Turkey trying to avoid fully joining any of the opposing camps in the Middle East does a lot to explain its position with respect to Syria.

I also think Turkey is maturing in connecting its foreign policy to domestic perceptions, sensibilities and values.

Erdogan doesn't have to be radical since he is the alternative to the pro-US military ultimately controlling the country.  He faces no challenge from his left. Because he is a hero of the left for starting the process of restoring the government's accountability to the people of Turkey. Later politicians will have to actually reach the median Turkish voter, which Erdogan does not have to do. 

Erdogan is also strapped with a foreign policy establishment of people who largely grew their careers when Turkey was a US client. Later politicians will have as their foreign policy officers and military people whose careers began post-military control. (Hopefully.)

So I think Turkey is democratic but not yet fully reflective of the people of Turkey in its foreign policies.

I think the people of Turkey would vote to be a lot closer to the resistance axis than Turkey actually is if given the opportunity.  And Erdogan has set Turkey on a path that the people of Turkey will more and more, after he is gone, be the ones who decide Turkey's policies.

In other words, I see Turkey as a temporary aberration from its "natural" regional stance and am not bothered much by that because it may be a self-correcting problem.

On the other hand, I hate to see Syrians dying because Turkey is not fully independent yet.

Lidia said...

Arnold, a good one. I always is taken aback when people who are busy waging colonial wars and mass-murdering (not mentioning support for other mass-murdering of their lackeys) are somehow still could be taken seriously as "not indifferent to human suffering"! Were I a supporter of Freud, I would call Obama a sadist and necrophil, as well as all his cohort. 

masoud said...

Left and Right are funny concepts to try and apply to the middle east. In most of the world, military junta's are the 'right', and anyone opposing them are the 'left'. In Turkey, thought, the AKP, which is prevailing over the generals are also deeply religious, which is another traditional marker of the 'right wing'. And unlike in some other countries, the AKP ideology has never, to my knowledge ever had a working relationship, or organic link, to leftist parties, student unions, or workers movements. They are rather tied to the 'Anatolian Tiger' religiously devout businessmen, an association that marks political parties in the west as 'center right', all though these days those very same parties might be considered 'center left'. One of the AKP's pet projects has also been IMF/World Bank guided 'welfare reform'. Though I'm not exactly clear what the specifics of the reform are, such programs are almost always regressive .

While I would agree that Turkey is less 'right wing' than it was during the nineties, I think you would have trouble pinpointing any Turkish policy that is 'leftist' in any absolute sense.

While I agree that the future looks mostly bright for Turkey, I think this newly found neo-Ottoman swagger has far too much resonance with ordinary Turks than makes me comfortable. For the moment, it is allowing the AKP to get away with an imitation of western colonialism that strikes as worryingly on the mark.

Arnold Evans said...

Considering that most arabs are willing to accept israel in the case of the two state solution this belief does not hold out.

I've talked about this before.

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2012/01/stratfor-george-friedman-argue-that.html

Most Arabs are willing to accept Israel provided Israel accepts conditions that Israeli leaders say they will not accept and that most Arabs believe Israel will not accept.

Meaning you're citing polls that have no real-world relevance but whose only purpose is to allow you to make the misleading claim you make above.

It's probably not mostly your fault, Westerners tend to engage in just a whirlpool of deceptions of themselves, each other and then anyone else who will listen to them on the subject of Israel, which is part of the reason for this blog.

Dermot Moloney said...

"
I've talked about this before.


http://mideastreality.blogspot..."
I know, i took issue with it then also, ""As an aside, many Westerners have convinced themselves that the Arab world is prepared to accept Israel in the context of a two-state solution."
This is the findings of one of the more recent polls from brookings where most arabs are willing to make peace with israel if the two state solution can come about.

Unfortunately and understandably they are sceptical of it occurring. Only a minority believe that a war would achieve such a thing, they are likely right about this."
" you to make the misleading claim you make above"

There is nothing misleading about, its just a fact which counters your belief that if the countries were democratic israels existence could possibly end.

"Westerners tend to engage in just a whirlpool of deceptions of themselves"

Are you not a westerner?

Also there is no deception here, just some facts.

Dermot Moloney said...

 necrophil???
....i see.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Barack Obama, probably the most spectacular Uncle Tom in world history, has put the United States firmly behind this objective."
Actually the us's position is actually quite in line with the majority of the world on this one, syria is under the control of an oppressive dictator who is committing mass human rights abuses  and actions ( not necessarily militarily) should be taken to help hinder these abuses.

"The United States has put its colonies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar behind Israel's objective for Syria."

Neither of these nations are US colonies.

"I don't have a good explanation for why Turkey is following Israel/the US/Saudi Arabia in trying to dismantle Syria."

Its due to syrias abuses getting so bad it couldnt ignore or downplay them anymore. 

"A partially democratic regime is what the US is aiming for in Egypt today.
“ ‘Full civilian control’ is a little excessive, I think,” Mr. Carter said"

The following piece doest actually show if this is what the us is aiming for, it just shows what carter believes will happen.

" Juan Cole, is that the United States supports democracy in the Middle East if at all, then only if that "democracy" does not extend to popular control or accountability over issues the United States is most concerned with, particularly foreign policy related to Israel."

When did juan cole say such a thing?

"Iran would prefer to see a graceful transition from an independent dictatorship to an independent democracy."

Its actually highly unlikely that the oppressive government in iran would like to see assad their ally go.

Dermot Moloney said...

I recall you asking for a link to support my claims that the relationship between israel and sa is poor and that some people people consider sa to be a threat.

This was done, my link showed clearly that the israelis considered sa to be acountry which took hostile actions against it and it was also shown that they were those who considered sa to be a threat.

"Dermot obviously disagrees and thinks Saudi Arabia is already as much a threat as it could be, but no link supports this thesis of his, while his own link contradicts it"

I never once claimed that arnold.
My position is that as it stands israeli and sa relations are overall poor, and they this condition would likely be the same even if sa was democratic. It is possible however for sa israeli relations to get worse if certain islamic extremist were ever to come to power.

"The one link, Lidia's, that actually had the word threat described the threat the pro-US monarchy poses as minimal.  Minimal means the least possible.  If zero is possible, minimal means zero."

Arnold you asked for someone describing sa as a threat to israel, this really wasnt necessary for it is clear from wikileaks that israeli officials saw sa as taken hostile actions against their state. Nevertheless someone using that magical word was there.
You got what you asked for, trying to say that minimal threat means no threat is frankly silly.

 " In other words, the one link that uses the word threat argues the exact opposite of what Dermot argues." 

If the link said it was not a threat then this would be true but the link actually does describe sa as a threat and also referenced the fact that sa took part in wars against israel. Again lets also recall israeli official seeing sa as hostile to it and engaging in actions which threatened israels security by aided anti-israeli forces,other sources have also found this.

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hireview/content.php?type=article&issue=fall02/&name=source 

Dermot says Saudi Arabia went to war with Israel. 

Factually correct.

 At least one of the wars there 

This is a mistake arnold, i mentioned the 48 war, the war that you are referencing in 73 was aided financially by sa, sa would not have been one of the combatants.


"If Barack Obama believed that, the US would a) call for democracy in Saudi Arabia b) publicly threaten, and carry out his threat, to reduce its support for the monarchy unless it transfers power to representative political bodies."

Not necessarily and unlikely, so implying that because they have not done such a thing shows my position to be wrong is not correct.

Again your major position as i pointed out time and time again is flawed, you seem to believe that overall on the question of israel the governments are not following the will of the people and if they did zionism would not survive.

Considering that most arabs are willing to accept israel in the case of the two state solution this belief does not hold out.

Also the idea that hundreds of millions of people are being subjugated because of israel isnt accurate, they those who are being subjugated but they would be the palestinians. Others in the region have problems due to simply having oppressive leaders.


 

Arnold Evans said...

I would have been clearer righting "anti-Western" or even clearer "anti-Zionist" instead of Left.

Unless there is a counter-revolution - which is a real fear if Erdogan ties lets Saudi money and influence into Turkey's political process, but I haven't seen indications of yet - Turkey will develop its own politics with its own thinkers and Turkey's voters will be presented with an entire spectrum of ideas.

I would love to see that.  That idea makes me very happy.

If they have choices, I don't care if they choose differently than I would choose.  The important thing is that they can make mistakes and learn from them and their politics will follow their own perceptions, sensibilities and values.

But today, I don't think Turkey is quite there yet.  This "split the middle" policy that I agree Turkey is trying to follow I'm not sure would get the most votes in a Turkish political process post-Erdogan, since later politicians will, unlike Erdogan, have serious political challenges from the anti-Zionist side.

Arnold Evans said...

A simple illustration: would you drink your own urine if your life depended on it?

You say yes, then I begin leaving out the last part and reporting that you said you favor drinking your own urine.

When a pollster asks "would you accept Israel if Israel did these things (that the person polled understands will never be done not least because Israel repeatedly says it will never do them)" that question has no real world relevance.

But it allows you to make the exact statement you made above.

It was, all along, a deliberately misleading effort with only one purpose, to allow you, and people like you, to make that statement, dropping the important conditions asked in the original question.

It is deception, but I don't expect you to be aware of it.  I don't mind you disagreeing.  I point it out to others though.

Lidia said...

Necrophilia in neo-psychoanalysis
In the analytic social psychology of Erich Fromm, necrophilia is a character orientation which shows an increasing tendency toward destructiveness. Used in a non-sexual sense, Erich Fromm understood necrophilia as an everyday behavior which is not an expression of a biologically fixated death instinct, but the consequence of a life without being really alive.
For Erich Fromm, necrophilia is the opposite of biophilia. The lack of love in the western society leads to necrophilia. Symbols of the necrophile are facades made of concrete and steel, modern weapon systems, the idolatry of the technology of the megamachine (technophilia), the wasting of resources inconsumerism and the treatment of people as things in bureaucratism.


http://www.monstropedia.org/Necrophilia#Necrophilia_in_neo-psychoanalysis

Dermot Moloney said...

"
are somehow still could be taken seriously as "not indifferent to human suffering"! Were I a supporter of Freud, I would call Obama a sadist and necrophil, as well as all his cohort."

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones lidia.

Dermot Moloney said...

Done and done arnold, and thank you for confirming that you are a fan censorship.

Arnold Evans said...

You know what? Now that you mention it, I'm tempted to stop allowing you to comment here until you read and comment on the post where our primary disagreement is spelled out.

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-zionism-will-come-to-close.html

I hope Lidia wouldn't consider it too Zionist of me (Lidia, :-) ), but I'd be able to handle that if necessary.

I won't for now, but if I come to feel annoyed, that would be the next step.

Dermot Moloney said...

Seriously?

Wow, so even when given the oppertunity you would apply one rule for others and one rule for yourself.

This is as bad as the time i asked the question of whether you would support a scenario which would lessen human distress or support a scenario which would cause distress and you choose the latter :/

Supporting measures which evidence shows causes excess stress, having certain rules for yourself and different ones for others..........in lidias words, "how very zionist of you"

Dermot Moloney said...

"
No it is not."
Really?Quite the claim, could you provide evidence that brookings left out some of the question on their polling presentation that they had included in the original question sheet.Or could you just rightly admit that your comparison holds no water and that you are in the wrong."I'll leave it to you to read the text of the polls more closely"

Ive read them accurately.....you on the otherhand.......

Arnold Evans said...

It seems.  But I'll follow whatever rules you set if I decide to comment on your blog.

Anyway, again feel free to challenge or criticize one of the core premises of this blog where it is spelled out in full.

Nothing stops you if that's what you want to do.

Dermot Moloney said...

How come you keep avoiding my question, awhile ago you seemed quite insistent that others had to answer, one rule for you and one rule for others it seems.

Dermot Moloney said...

(facepalm again)

Considering brookings is quite well known its hard to imagine that they dont know already.

Dermot Moloney said...

"Arnold, DM knows better :) (than USA rulers, than Zionists and so on)."
What do you mean by this lidia?

"forced on Egypt by USA and supported by bribery of USA lackeys aka Egyptian rulers till the end of Mubarak rule."

Forced in slightly pushing it considering most of the recent polls show that most egyptians themselves are for keeping it.

"Arnold, what a wonderful world for Zionists and USA rulers could be if DM was right :)"

"If"?

Lidia i believe i already showed polling evidence which showed that most arabs do support the two state solution.

It wasnt that long ago, do you recall it?

"I guess DM should tell about his great discovery to Obama."

Again its hardly a great discovery, it was found by the brookings institute last year, so administration officials involved in the middle east likely already know about it for some time.

"After all, it is not nice of DM to keep such matter all to himself and us :"

To myself?

(facepalm)

Lidia, it was already on this site, you even commented in the comments section.

Arnold Evans said...

This fact very seriously derails your entire thesis or belief that if
the nations followed the will of the people ( they should) then israels
existence would be threatened or that it or zionism would cease.


The best place to state your objections to that idea is where it is fully spelled out in detail, which is here:

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-zionism-will-come-to-close.html

Feel free.

Arnold Evans said...

I guess DM should tell about his great discovery to Obama.

That would be a good idea.

Arnold Evans said...

The recognition question is given in full,

No it is not.  I'll leave it to you to read the text of the polls more closely.

You can find one in the link upthread.

Lidia said...

Arnold, DM knows better :) (than USA rulers, than Zionists and so on).

Since there opened a possibility  Egypt more answerable to the people could end so-called "peace" with Zionists, USA rulers and Zionists are on tenterhooks. They demand from rulers of Egypt (non-democratic) to swear that they would keep it. On the other hand, every politician who wants to sound popular-like has to utter some words against the treaty, forced on Egypt by USA and supported by bribery of USA lackeys aka Egyptian rulers till the end of Mubarak rule.

Arnold, what a wonderful world for Zionists and USA rulers could be if DM was right :) NO need to support the most reactionary dictators, no need to topple popular rulers - JUST let the majority of the ME to have their say :)

I guess DM should tell about his great discovery to Obama. After all, it is not nice of DM to keep such matter all to himself and us :), when he could save trillions of dollars for USA government.

Dermot Moloney said...

Woeful response arnold.

First of all the two things are not comparable even though you mistakenly think they are.

First of all the first one leaves a mistaken impression on those reading it by leaving out the second part of the question being asked which will then leave those observing the response a negative reaction.

The recognition question is given in full, observers are in no doubt as to what was asked and what percentage agreed or disagreed with the statement.

Again when someone has a weak belief they tend to grasp onto anything to support no matter how weak it is, and if they want to believe in something strong enough they will often perceive it to be stronger than what it is.

The above defense is an example of that.

It does not actually challenge the fact that most arabs support peace in favor of the two state solution.

Most do even though they recognise and feel that israel is often an insincere partner.

This fact very seriously derails your entire thesis or belief that if the nations followed the will of the people ( they should) then israels existence would be threatened or that it or zionism would cease.

It wouldnt.


As a side note are you not a westerner yourself, where are you from?

Dermot Moloney said...

"
Like when you said Freedom House called Tunisia and Kuwait "partly free""

Whats wrong with that, they do seem to be partially free, good for them, theirs still a bit to go though.

"There is no reasonable question that there is armed resistance to the government in Homs.  There is also no reasonable question that the armed resistance to the government has foreign support from countries hostile to Syria. "

Their is indeed armed resistance but that does not give one the right to commit human rights against civilians.

"Barack Obama would not tolerate armed resistance "

Obama does tolerate people wishing for him to leave office and accepts a system where he will leave office if he is voted out or when his limited term expires, he does not like assad engage in violent actions to prevent this from happening.

Even though assad is an oppressive dictator and his security forces are responsible for many abuses against his people i notice that your commentary about him is very mild, you do see him as an oppressive dictator, yes?

Arnold Evans said...

Interesting which comments get posted there and which do not.  The one above made it through, two later ones did not though.

1) In reply to a statement: The protesters who were attacked by the Syrian regime, and then took up arms in response, were not part of a secession movement.

That's a commonly repeated narrative.  But I have not seen compelling evidence that it is accurate.

What one link can you produce that best establishes that non-violent protests were attacked by the Syrian regime?

2) The first report of an ambush that I can find was from around April 10, 2011.  That attack was not related to any protests but was done against troops going from one city to another.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110411/163469831.html

The number of Syrian servicemen killed in an ambush on an armed
forces unit in the country's northwest has risen to nine, the Syrian
SANA news agency reported on Monday.


The armed forces unit came under attack at a highway between the port
cities of Latakia and Tartus on Sunday afternoon. Seven soldiers and
two officers are among those killed, Sana said, quoting an official
source.


Previous reports said one serviceman had been killed and dozens injured.


Less than one month after the beginning of peaceful protests there were attacks on Syrian troops completely independent of any peaceful protest movement.

Arnold Evans said...

One more comment, we'll see if it's posted.

In response to the commonly but wrongly expressed concern that Iran's nuclear program might impact Saudi Arabia's nuclear policy:

I'm not too worried about your link that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons in response to Iran.

The people of Saudi Arabia consider Israel more of an adversary, yet the government of Saudi Arabia has not responded for decades to Israel amassing hundreds of nuclear weapons.

The only possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia is not an independent state, but executes the foreign policy imposed on it by the United States, in which case the United States, regardless of Iran's nuclear program, can and will exercise the option of not allowing Saudi Arabia to develop even legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Brazil has.

In short, if Saudi Arabia is not independent enough to respond to Israel's nuclear arsenal, it is not independent enough to respond to Iran achieving legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Brazil has.