Dennis Ross, who spent a lifetime pretending to work for the
government of the United States
but actually worked for the government of Israel and the Jewish
establishment, is at it again. He is pretending.
This time, however, his injurious quackery will not involve
the helpless Palestinians whose injuries had limited effect on America ; it will involve the Russians, the
Iranians and the Syrians whose injuries will have ramifications America will
wish it never provoked.
Ross teamed up with someone named Andrew J. Tabler with whom
he coauthored an article under the title: “A Syria Policy for Trump,” and the
subtitle: “How Washington
Can get to a Settlement.” It was published on December 1, 2016 on the website
of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. While the goal remains
dragging America deeper into
the Middle East quagmire, the two authors have adopted an indirect approach to
advising America
on how it should handle the Syrian situation. It is a devious plan that looks
benign on the surface but aims to achieve a hellish goal.
Whereas the Jews used to argue that Assad must go and Syria must be
partitioned, our two authors have now adopted the old Jewish trick of
sugarcoating the poison pill before offering it to the gullible North Americans
who swallowed it each time. The old trick used to go something like this: If
you – governments of Quebec or Canada or the US – will give us millions of
dollars and do the other things we propose, we'll start a program that will
promote understanding between the faiths. We'll get to know more about
everyone, and everyone will get to know more about us. And if President Obama
would visit Israel ,
a peace treaty with the Palestinians will result.
Replicating that pattern of con artistry, Ross and Tabler
are now advancing the following argument:
“US policy has remained committed to the unity of Syria
under UN Security Council resolution 2254, which reaffirmed the 'sovereignty,
independence, unity, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic' …
The United States will need to uproot extremists and provide humanitarian
protection to the country's component parts, with an eye toward putting them
back together again”.
That is, instead of demanding that Syria be partitioned – the way they used to –
they now say America must
deal with Syria
as if it has been partitioned into several components already. America must
then take whatever forceful action will be necessary to uproot the extremists
within it. Only after this is done, should America
worry about putting Syria 's
component parts together again.
And that's only the sugar coating. The poison pill hidden
inside follows in this form: “To achieve that, there are five major options
that the Trump administration could apply to Syria: no-fly zones; anti-regime
airstrikes, arming of the opposition; sanctions; and diplomacy … recognizing
that doing so may require a willingness to tolerate the risks associated with
using force”.
Anyway you look at it; this means America
must get involved militarily in Syria
up to its eyeballs. Their aim is to bring about the partition of the country
while pretending that someone else has already done it. As to the matter of
Assad leaving Syria , this
can be accomplished by America
aiding his opposition both directly and indirectly, say Ross and Tabler. And
this is what they recommend: Give the opposition more and better weapons and
engage the Syrian military with cruise missiles and such. Here is how they put
it in their own words:
“The United
States could help even out the balance of
power by punishing the regime with cruise missiles, or airstrikes on regime
airfields. This risks inadvertently killing Russian soldiers, but the
concentration of Russian forces in a few geographical areas ensures that there
are multiple targets within the country that could be safely attacked by the
United States from outside Syrian air space … The United States could [also]
provide qualitatively new weapons in larger amounts to the Syrian opposition”.
Twice before did the two military superpowers confront each
other in a hot war – one directly and the other by proxy. In Vietnam , America
was involved directly while the Soviet Union
used the Vietnamese as proxy. In Afghanistan ,
the Soviet Union was involved directly while America used the Afghans as proxy.