The End???

Pompey Magnus

Could we see the United States finding some reason in the next few weeks or months to justify an attack on Iran or Syria while their troops are stationed in Iraq?

Irans nuclear programme, could be used as a reason, although its a stretch in reasoning

bonkey

Iran being in the "Axis of Evil", and Syria shipping arms to Iraq (who was also in the (Axis of Evil) should give the US all the justification it needs.

Besides....can't they just play the "oppressive regime, free the people" card again? Surely for the pro-war supporters, no other justification could possibly be needed, as this fundamentally has been the only justification for the current war which has held any water.

jc

Sparks

Might be a lot easier to attack an Iranian military group claiming that they were crossing the Iraqi border to fight the US, and then go from there to a full-scale war.
But somehow I see this takeover being done through more covert, nastier, and cheaper means, just like the bad old days in Chile and El Salvador.

Éomer of Rohan

Hell, It is not just possible, it is likely! Have you each heard the rhetoric emerging from the pentagon about Syria and their support for Iraq and the 5000 militia troops they have stationed on the Iraq/Syrian border? I think it sounds like the lead up to a campaign of propaganda which may lead to the war with Syria. Iran is less likely I think, though by no means ruled out - hell they may just have another crack at Vietnam and correct more 'mistakes'!

Gordon

I wonder if they will consider battling Russia because of the military "help" they gave Iraq allegedly, and the alleged hiding of Saddam hussain in their embassy which was pure rumour.. allegedly.

TomF

This item was supposedly put on the wires by Agence France-Presse:
"WASHINGTON (AFP) Apr 10, 2003
Syria has been 'behaving badly' on the sidelines of the war on Iraq, but while US officials are monitoring the situation closely, military intervention was [not] anticipated, US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Thursday."

The URL is a little dicey, and the word, "not" was missing in that original, but if this was put on the wires by a Frenchman, then transcribed by someone on the Spacewar.com site, it could be an honest mistake. Anyway, it doesn't seem from what Wolfowitz is saying that there are plans to invade Syria.

http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030410172243.a7w6yjyy.html

DadaKopf

Originally posted by bonkey
Iran being in the "Axis of Evil", and Syria shipping arms to Iraq (who was also in the (Axis of Evil) should give the US all the justification it needs.

Besides....can't they just play the "oppressive regime, free the people" card again? Surely for the pro-war supporters, no other justification could possibly be needed, as this fundamentally has been the only justification for the current war which has held any water.

jc

In spite of a fairly opressive government (at least, as oppressive as Isreal), Syria is clearly perceived as a weak state any therefore any attack or invasion, or threat of attack or invasion would be completely unteneble and would further expose the administration.

Syria clearly has links to 'terrorism'. As far as America and Israel are concerned, Syria is a belligerant state. However, to play the terrorism card here would make the US very vulnerable. By playing the terrorism card, they'll be moving in on Hamas, whose role in Arab politics is perceived (at present) as legitimate. Given the circumstances, who couldn't sympathise at least a little? If they move in on Syria, they'll be seen by Arabs to be 'doing a Saddam' on Hamas and by extension the Palestinians and the Arab world.

Israel will remain the key. Talking hard on Syria will depend on delivering in the West Bank and Gaza. I think the US is more likely to threaten Syria economically, or at least offer them big incentives if they comply, rather than attacking. I don't think it would be wise for Bush to threaten Syria or Hamas. Ousting Saddam was tolerated by the Arabs because they didn't really like him but eradicating Palestinian terrorism will only happen by dealing with Israeli aggression through a successful peace process.

Sparks

In spite of a fairly opressive government (at least, as oppressive as Isreal), Syria is clearly perceived as a weak state any therefore any attack or invasion, or threat of attack or invasion would be completely unteneble and would further expose the administration.

Didn't stop them with Iraq...

Éomer of Rohan

...and Iraq didn't have links with terrorists.

DadaKopf

Originally posted by Sparks
Didn't stop them with Iraq...

Nobody (to my knowledge) is claiming that Syria has WMD's. Nobody is denying that Syria has terrorist links. While it's important to sniff out radical extremist terrorists, Hamas will have to be treated differently, as they're clearly a strategic response to Israeli abuses. Syria is in a prime bargaining position and I think that even for Washington's tastes, war would be counterproductive. Saddam was a dictator and generally despised by the Arab world, just a little more or less than the Americans or Israelis. Hamas and the PLO, on the other hand, have enormous support for good reason and nobody would stand for war.

Another little point: once diplomatic and economic pressure was placed on Pakistan, they joined the 'super-friends'. I expect Syria may be cajoled if real progress in Israel is made.

TomF

Here's another fascinating and funny essay by Jonah Goldberg. This one explores an American conservative's worries about going into the Middle East and upsetting the present state of affairs (as in going into Syria next).

"[Marshall] opens with a hypothetical 'nightmare scenario' in which America takes the fight to Syria and invites a nasty terrorist attack in response. He then writes: 'To most Americans, this would sound like a frightening state of affairs, the kind that would lead them to wonder how and why we had got ourselves into this mess in the first place. But to the Bush administration hawks who are guiding American foreign policy, this isn't the nightmare scenario. It's everything going as anticipated.'

Marshall goes on to offer a glimpse of what could go wrong: new wars, terrorist attacks at home and abroad, rising oil prices, the Lebanonization of the entire Mideast, riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, etc., etc. "

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp

Sparks

Dadakopf,
I think it's fair to say that Saddam was despised more for the Ba'ath party opposition to Islam than for his human rights record, given the human rights record of the other middle eastern countries.

Thing is, I think the only thing that will stop the US from wandering through Syria and Iran will be the US economy falling over before they can think of a good excuse.

And of course, the behaviour of the US towards Iraq and the DPRK is going to promote every nation in the Middle East to step up their programs to gain nuclear arms to record levels...