Wednesday, June 19, 2013

US SUBCOMMITTEE ON SYRIA,CIA FRONTS,FDD,NED,AND ZIONISTS BACK REGIME CHANGE .... Hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa Tony Badran (ZIONIST) Research Fellow Foundation for Defense of Democracies(CIA FRONT-REGIME CHANGE INC.)
We should begin by clearly and credibly defining the goal of US policy to be the removal of not just Assad personally, but also his security regime, which has served as Iran’s strategic partner for more than 30 years. Furthermore, since today the Assad regime is effectively an Iranian satrapy, US policy should explicitly state that the maintenance of the structures of Iranian influence in Syria is antithetical to US interests. [[[[Currently, the policy seems more focused on the fate of Assad himself, which misses this larger strategic context. Seeing Iran emerge with its interests unharmed in Syria will be nothing short of a humiliating defeat for the US, with major geopolitical consequences on our position, and that of our allies, in the region.]]]] As one former senior US official recently put it, "They have decided to win, and we have not."Our allies and our enemies are both watching and drawing conclusions about our strategic posture and willpower vis-à-vis Iran. If Iran secures its interests in Syria, it will affect the regional balance of power against the US-led bloc in the region. This is to say nothing about the conclusions Iran will draw about our seriousness to stop its nuclear drive, having witnessed the US President draw a red line in Syria only to later back down. Our regional allies have expressed concern about precisely this issue. A lesson can be drawn from our Israeli allies’ prioritization of threats in Syria. The Israelis have made three major incursions in Syria, all three of them targeting Iranian strategic weapons. While keeping a weary eye on Sunni Islamist militias, the number one strategic priority in Jerusalem remains to deny the Iranians the positioning of strategic on Israel’s borders. To deny Iran a victory, the US must target its avenues of support to the Syrian regime and Assad’s strong points. Currently, much of the military aid to the regime arrives via Damascus airport. Targeting that airfield and other runways in western Syria still under regime control would go a long way toward degrading Assad’s military power. It would effectively ground his air force and deny him a critical logistical port. Targeting ballistic missile sites, as Israel recently did, will also limit Assad’s ability to strike at areas outside his control. For instance, strikes on the regime’s major airfields and strategic installations in western Syria using stand off weapons could achieve desired results. The important thing is for such measures to have clear objectives integrated in a broader strategy. In this case, the tactical objective is to seriously degrade critical capabilities and a major resupply line of the regime, thereby altering the balance of forces on the ground. This will not deny all of the regime’s firepower. However, it would deplete it significantly while also obstructing its replenishment. In tandem with this measure, the US should exercise leadership and bring together a group of allies – Britain, France, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – that have been pressing us for a more robust policy and who want to see the Iranians defeated in Syria. Pooling their resources, as well as their intelligence channels to various rebel groups, we should build a rebel force following a two-pronged approach on the ground.In cooperation with Turkey, we should help organize, train and equip local forces in northern Syria to better execute specific tactical missions, such as storming the remaining pockets of regime bases and airfields, cutting logistical supply routes between Homs and Aleppo, and pushing back any counteroffensives by Hezbollah in places like Idlib and Aleppo. A similar approach would be adapted with Jordan on the southern border in and around Daraa, preparing the way for the rebels to close in on Damascus. Once the US has signaled its intent to exercise leadership on the ground, the prospects for a proper rebel command will improve dramatically To be sure, many of the fighting forces with whom the administration today is dealing embrace an Islamist identity of one shade or another. That has to be acknowledged. However, not all Islamists can be grouped under the Al-Qaeda label. Proof is that some of these same Islamist formations – and in other cases, tribal-based formation – have clashed with Jabhat al-Nusra in northern and eastern Syria. [[[[[[The idea that "there are no good guys in Syria" is not only unhelpful, but also runs counter to how the US has made policy choices in the past. In World War II, for instance, no one applied that logic to allying with Stalin’s Soviet Union against Nazi Germany. There was a strategic prioritization. We first tackled the first threat, and then proceeded to devise policy to counter the Soviet Union in the Cold War. In the end, it’s important to recognize that there is no solution to the Syrian problem without getting rid of Assad and his regime. Our current policy assumes that the regime, if not Assad himself, can be a valid interlocutor. This is a mistake. There can be no "managed political transition" in Syria]]]]]
[ed notes:tony badran is a zionist,whos goals are strengthenining israhelli hegemony in region...his advocacy for us(zionist ran)to work with western allies(zionist ran)and the middle east gulf monarchies to overthrow Assad speaks volumes...zionists arent even shy about working with puppet pagan gulf client regimes anymore...BACKROUND Tony Badran Participates in AIPAC Panel | Foundation for Defense ... Syria Crisis Gets A Hearty Embrace At Pro-Israel AIPAC Conference
Ms. Danielle Pletka (zionist) Vice President Foreign and Defense Policy Studies
American Enterprise Institute (cold war hawks,ziocons)
What we should do now is straightforward:

Use stand-off weaponry such as the Tomahawk missile to disable Syrian airfields and render inoperable the air force and resupply hubs that are now facilitating Assad’s advance.Consider the imposition of a no-fly zone in cooperation with NATO allies and the Arab League. I believe this is not the demanding exercise some have suggested, and many analysts assess Syrian air defenses as far less than their specs would suggest.Immediately impose new sanctions on Hezbollah, including broad travel sanctions, freezing accounts of Hezbollah owned companies, related banks and isolate families and supporters of Hezbollah. Ban the entry into the United States of all Hezbollah officials, their immediate families and officers and relatives of banks and companies with substantial Hezbollah holdings. What we should do once Assad falls is also straightforward, and should reflect lessons learned from Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and other Arab Spring countries. The United States must act to reflect its values, and implement a policy consistent with those values and ideals. What do we support?
[[[[[Free markets ]]]]]
[[[[[[I suspect that as we move away from some of those values here at home, it will be more difficult for us to press for them abroad.]]]]]]] Nonetheless, these are the pillars of our nation, tried and true. These are the foundations of opportunity, prosperity and peace.
In each of the countries where a dictatorial ruler has fallen, either by force as with Iraq, or through popular revolutions as in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, we see a leader similar to the previous secular dictator in his place. Can we stop the popular election of an Islamist? We cannot. But we could have and still can work to support liberals and moderates. We can direct our assistance to benefit those who share those values. We can deny assistance to any regime that fails on these standards.[[[[[[We can support the private sector and starve the public sector.]]]]]]] We can end cash transfers. We can vote with our feet and our taxpayer dollars. In each case I have mentioned, we have not.
[ed notes:backround on ms pletka.... Pletka ranks as one of the early neo-conservatives, and is also a close associate of Martin Indyk. Pletka has been at the forefront of the neocon war drumming against Iraq...(New Yorker 2004) in 2006 Pletka helped establish AEI's "Iraq Planning Group," a panel led by AEI scholar Frederick Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane that successfully promoted the controversial “surge” in Iraq. More recently, in January 2013, Pletka joined a campaign orchestrated by a number of “pro-Israel” writers like William Kristol to prevent the confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as defense secretary in Barack Obama’s second administration. [[[[[[[Pletka has supported the work of numerous hawkish advocacy groups. In 2002 and 2003 Pletka signed letters to President George W. Bush and two statements on post-war Iraq produced by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC),]]]]]]] a now-defunct advocacy group that was closely associated with AEI. She was one of a small group of prominent supporters of the now-defunct Coalition for Democracy in Iran, a group that operated out of the office of Morris Amitay. And Pletka is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a 1970s-era anti-communist pressure group that was re-constituted after the 9/11 attacks to pressure the United States to wage a broad “war on terror.”

No comments: