Mulling over LEE LOFASO to STEVE ASHER 22 Feb 2005

G'day Lee..

>SA>Iran Calls for Alliance to Combat U.S. and Israel

>SA>02/1705 "The Scotsman" - - Iran urged regional
countries to create
>SA>a powerful alliance today and remain vigilant in the face of "US and
>SA>Israeli plots."

 LL> Armed with nukes, Iran could be a problem.  But if Iran is
 LL> suspected of actually having nukes, Iran would become no more.  

Ultimately, Iran will "become no more", with or without nukes. It
will attack Israel, and will be destroyed, possibly supernaturally.

 LL> My guess is that the US and/or Israel would take out Iran 
 LL> *before* Iran could come up with having actual nukes.

Not a bad guess, but "informed sources" indicate that Iran (aka Persia)
will be part of a coalition that attacks Israel.

>LL>What a joke!  Syria is much weaker than Iraq was.  Furthermore, the
>LL>regime in Syria is led by a heretical sect within a heretical sect,
>LL>having virtually no support amongst the people of Syria. In a war
>LL>with the U.S., Syria would last maybe a week.  At best. That is, if
>LL>it had support from Iran.  Otherwise, give Syria three days.  At
>LL>most.

SA>I doubt it will matter if the USA attacks Syria under the pretext of
SA>the Syria Accountability Act, which seems destined to paint Syria into
SA>a corner & make invasion inevitable as happened with Iraq, or if Iran/
SA>Syria simply act preemptively against Israel before a USA invasion.

 LL> Militarily, Syria would be no match for the US.  Neither would
 LL> Syria be a match for Israel.  The problem is, if Syria is attacked
 LL> by either the US or Israel, the entire Middle East could go up in
 LL> flames.

That is not necessarily a problem to those painting Syria and Iran
into a corner; it may well be their desired outcome. Iraq had to be
taken out of the way before Iran could pass through it when it attacks
Israel; it may be that the architects of a US or Israeli attack on Syria
are seeking to fragment Syria & create a compliant Kurdish state in
excised parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. A reasonably powerful,
"pro-west" Kurdish state might be seen as a counter to the nations 
round about. The Kurds are likely to seek an autonomous or independent
state without Western "help" in any event.

 LL>   Sure, Syria invaded Lebanon in 1976.  And Israel invaded
 LL> Lebanon in 1982.  But times have changed.  The Palestinians have
 LL> started *two* intefadahs.  And Yasser Arafat is no longer around to
 LL> keep the peace.  Sharon is not just a general anymore.  He is the
 LL> leader of Israel.  Many Palestinians, and Arabs, view Sharon as
 LL> being a war criminal, a result of his doing nothing to stop the
 LL> massacre of refugees in Lebanon two decades ago. 

>SA>The call came a day after Syria and Iran declared they would form a
>SA>united front in the face of any threats.

>LL>The Iran/Syria alliance has become the biggest joke on the planet.

SA>I don't see what alternative Syria has - the Accountability Act has
SA>sufficient clauses to ensure that Syria would would be unwilling or
SA>unable to comply with all of them - Syria might reasonably halt
SA>support for terrorism and end its occupation of Lebanon. It might
SA>not be unable to stop development of "weapons of mass destruction"
SA>if, like Iraq, it isn't developing any - not having the things is
SA>not a defence against a US invasion. It might not be in a position
SA>to "cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil", especially if the
SA>USA, as an occupying power in Iraq, is apparently unable to cease
SA>illegal exportation of oil (if any) to Syria. The "other purposes"
SA>could be trumped up into a pretext for a US invasion - Condi giving
SA>a Powell-style address to the UN with a whole heap of "garden grunt"
SA>about Syria's Winnebagoes of Death, Anthrax, aloominum toobs etc etc.
SA>She could re-use Powell's speech & props, & just change a few names.

 LL> After Powell's famous speech at the UN, Powell lost all credibility
 LL> among diplomats throughout the world.  Rice has now replaced
 LL> Powell, but everybody knows she will do the same as Powell - lie
 LL> for the president.  As such, she has just as much credibility as
 LL> Powell among diplomats.  Which is to say, none.

Unfortunately, the US Presidential system seems to nurture and reward
those who are willing to lie for the President.

>>> Continued to next message

Cheers, Steve..

---