Skip to main content

View Diary: Andy Borowitz Nails Syria Even Better (120 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hey now that would be great (6+ / 0-)

    but how does does it further the objective of regime changes in Syria and Iran as per Brookings' Which Path to Persia.

    It doesn't and that is one of the reasons it most likely will never happen.

    This is from 5 January 2012 - Asia Times Online:

    What we are seeing in Syria is a deliberate and calculated campaign to bring down the Assad government so as to replace it with a regime "more compatible" with US interests in the region.

    The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?"  - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region.

    A rereading of it, together with the more recent "Towards a Post-Assad Syria" from November 2011 (which adopts the same language and perspective, but focuses on Syria, and was recently produced by two US neo-conservative think-tanks) illustrates how developments in Syria have been shaped according to the step-by-step approach detailed in the "Paths to Persia" report with the same key objective: regime change.

    Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

    by truong son traveler on Fri Aug 30, 2013 at 07:40:17 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Instant results, versus long term strategy (2+ / 0-)

      Here's what Walt says on that:

      This route is obviously unlikely to yield an agreement that removes Assad from power, at least not anytime soon. My guess is that the most one could hope for is an agreement that imposed a cease-fire, acknowledged the de facto partition of Syrian territory into government and opposition zones, began negotiations on some sort of power-sharing arrangement, and maybe got outside powers to reduce their support for their various clients. But might this approach also begin to weaken the political support Assad has been getting from Russia, China, and Iran? They can't enjoy being the main protectors of a larcenous regime that has been killing lots of innocent people, and they might be looking for a way to distance themselves provided their own interests are protected.
      I cannot think that some sort of partition or power-sharing will appeal to the US though. Many of the parties rebelling against Assad's rule aren't going to be the type of small-d democrats America pretends it wants to support.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site