Banu Umayyah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2012
- Messages
- 1,147
- Reaction score
- 0
MUST read article:
Persistent rumors of such aid have been circulating for months, particularly originating in Beirut, as well as reports that U.S. Special Forces have been training and organizing the resistance. Beirut is a city filled with rumors, all contradictory and all delivered with conviction. It is impossible to believe that the United States has not sent intelligence personnel into Syria. The need to know what is happening on the ground and to make contact with the rebels is obviously crucial for Washington. Supplying weapons to rebels would also require such on-the-ground intelligence. It is possible that military personnel have not been deployed there, but if they were, Washington would deny it.
What is important about this is that it appeared in The Washington Post and would appear to originate with official sources in Washington. Clearly, Washington now wants a number of facts to be known. First, weapons -- including anti-tank weapons -- are now being delivered. The latter is important since tanks have been a mainstay of the Syrian military in fighting the rebels. Second, the funding is coming from other Arab countries. Third, the weapons are already in the country, indicating that this has been going on for a while now. Finally, this does not mean the United States is becoming militarily involved.
It is interesting that the report comes on the heels of the GCC meeting that failed to move forward on unification policies. Fear of Iranian reaction, along with disagreement within the GCC over what unification would entail, caused the organization to postpone action. The decision left the United States, which had released weapons to Bahrain, in an exposed position. The U.S. decision to reveal that the GCC countries were aiding rebels in Syria alongside the United States was intended to let Iran know that relations between the United States and the GCC are good. It was also intended to demonstrate that the United States was prepared to take a stand against Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime, and to take it publicly, if only by leak.
It is also interesting that Israeli news outlet Haaretz leaked that Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi "secretly" visited Washington and the United Nations headquarters in New York two weeks ago and allegedly delivered an Israeli reassessment that Israeli interests would be better served by toppling Assad than by preserving the Assad regime. That statement struck as potentially counterproductive as Israel's opposition strengthens the case for Assad in many circles. In addition, it is unclear what the Israelis can do in Syria. Still, it was another sign that the United States was trying to organize a more public and active opposition to Assad.
The reason for U.S. concern is obvious. As Stratfor has been saying, the survival of the Assad regime would extend Iranian influence to the Mediterranean. The United States has been opposing strikes on Iran directly, but it obviously feels that it must become more assertive on Syria. The problem with this story is that it is not clear that the Syrian opposition can utilize the weapons. By all accounts, they are so divided and dispersed that putting these weapons to effective use is going to be difficult.
A peculiarity of the story is that it names the places where the weapons have been stockpiled. We assume that part of the story is false, as it will cause the Syrians to leave no stone unturned to find the weapons. It may be that the story itself was planted to drive the Syrians to tremendous wasted effort. This is a story that in general makes sense. The United States needs to act against Assad to block the Iranians, and the weapons have been flowing for a while. What doesn't make sense are the details on timing, location and the presence of U.S. personnel.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Its over people, with weapons getting in and with all western countries kicking out Syrian ambassadors, its clear the regime will be toppled soon
Syria, Iran and a U.S.-GCC Weapons Leak
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that U.S. officials have given the green light for weapons, funded by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states as well as the United States, to be delivered to rebels in Syria. According to the report, armaments including anti-tank weapons are making their way to the Syrian rebels and materiel is being stockpiled in Damascus, in Idlib near the Turkish border and in Zabadani on the Lebanese border. However, no U.S. troops or intelligence personnel were said to be in Syria.Persistent rumors of such aid have been circulating for months, particularly originating in Beirut, as well as reports that U.S. Special Forces have been training and organizing the resistance. Beirut is a city filled with rumors, all contradictory and all delivered with conviction. It is impossible to believe that the United States has not sent intelligence personnel into Syria. The need to know what is happening on the ground and to make contact with the rebels is obviously crucial for Washington. Supplying weapons to rebels would also require such on-the-ground intelligence. It is possible that military personnel have not been deployed there, but if they were, Washington would deny it.
What is important about this is that it appeared in The Washington Post and would appear to originate with official sources in Washington. Clearly, Washington now wants a number of facts to be known. First, weapons -- including anti-tank weapons -- are now being delivered. The latter is important since tanks have been a mainstay of the Syrian military in fighting the rebels. Second, the funding is coming from other Arab countries. Third, the weapons are already in the country, indicating that this has been going on for a while now. Finally, this does not mean the United States is becoming militarily involved.
It is interesting that the report comes on the heels of the GCC meeting that failed to move forward on unification policies. Fear of Iranian reaction, along with disagreement within the GCC over what unification would entail, caused the organization to postpone action. The decision left the United States, which had released weapons to Bahrain, in an exposed position. The U.S. decision to reveal that the GCC countries were aiding rebels in Syria alongside the United States was intended to let Iran know that relations between the United States and the GCC are good. It was also intended to demonstrate that the United States was prepared to take a stand against Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime, and to take it publicly, if only by leak.
It is also interesting that Israeli news outlet Haaretz leaked that Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Aviv Kochavi "secretly" visited Washington and the United Nations headquarters in New York two weeks ago and allegedly delivered an Israeli reassessment that Israeli interests would be better served by toppling Assad than by preserving the Assad regime. That statement struck as potentially counterproductive as Israel's opposition strengthens the case for Assad in many circles. In addition, it is unclear what the Israelis can do in Syria. Still, it was another sign that the United States was trying to organize a more public and active opposition to Assad.
The reason for U.S. concern is obvious. As Stratfor has been saying, the survival of the Assad regime would extend Iranian influence to the Mediterranean. The United States has been opposing strikes on Iran directly, but it obviously feels that it must become more assertive on Syria. The problem with this story is that it is not clear that the Syrian opposition can utilize the weapons. By all accounts, they are so divided and dispersed that putting these weapons to effective use is going to be difficult.
A peculiarity of the story is that it names the places where the weapons have been stockpiled. We assume that part of the story is false, as it will cause the Syrians to leave no stone unturned to find the weapons. It may be that the story itself was planted to drive the Syrians to tremendous wasted effort. This is a story that in general makes sense. The United States needs to act against Assad to block the Iranians, and the weapons have been flowing for a while. What doesn't make sense are the details on timing, location and the presence of U.S. personnel.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Its over people, with weapons getting in and with all western countries kicking out Syrian ambassadors, its clear the regime will be toppled soon
