| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Britain Rewards Syria, Re-establishes Intelligence Ties |
| 2008-11-22 |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #8 Also, I remembered that Syria was overpumping its oilfields, against the recommendations of oil experts, so they screwed themselves of their reserves in the ground. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2008-11-22 21:04 |
#7 And then there's this.
Being in an axis with Iran may not be to Syria's long term economic advantage. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-11-22 20:07 |
| #6 The bombing of the nuclear facility showed Syria that they can be touched anywhere at any time and there really isn't a whole heck of a lot they can do about it. There is the implied message that whatever they have now, they retain it only because they are allowed to retain it. They most certainly should be asking themselves in a strategic sense which course would provide better long term security for Syria. They could continue to be Iran's proxy in the ME but what protection can Iran offer, particularly with oil prices at today's levels. We could wipe out Iran at this point with no more pain in the oil markets than we already suffered this past spring. Syria now has a stabilizing US ally between her and her "master" in Persia. What protection would Iran be able to offer in the long term? What threat or deterrent can Iran play to dissuade reaction from a Syrian adventure into Lebanon or Israel? Iran has growing internal dissatisfaction with the economy and policies of her President. Iran is becoming increasingly a "paper tiger" in the region. While wild statements come from the mouth of the President, one has to wonder how much support he actually has. But Syria must move gradually in order to save face. I believe they have switched sides but aren't being public with that yet. It certainly would be in her interest to do so. A relationship with Iran appears at this point to have diminishing return potential over time. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-11-22 20:01 |
| #5 There is a big difference between allowing some violent foreigners to be killed and having your secret nuclear bomb facility bombed to rubble against your will. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-11-22 17:11 |
| #4 IMHO, diplomatic relations/= intelligence sharing |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-22 17:08 |
| #3 It is doubtful that we are going to get an accurate picture of what is really going on. At least not from any news outlet. Say, for example, that Syria has been cooperating in ways that have been kept quiet. There was a recent raid by US forces into Syria that the Syrian government apparently approved although they had to say the required things for domestic consumption lest they look like they are kissing our butts. Say, for the sake of argument, that this hasn't been the only such raid, but the only one where a lot of shooting has been involved. Lets say that several "snatch" operations have been allowed across the border and the Syrians have been playing along. We would probably also assume that anything we get from the Syrians is likely to be crap but that isn't important. What is important is that if we establish ties at that level and we inform them of various goings on, there is no possible way they can claim they didn't know. I don't think we are so much interested in getting information from them as much as we are in getting certain information to them so that if they fail to act on it, we can hold them responsible. Just a thought, I would have no idea what the reality is and neither would anyone else outside of those having a need to know. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-11-22 16:35 |
| #2 We already have diplomatic relations with Syria. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-11-22 16:33 |
| #1 anticipating Obama doing the same, they reward a terrorist state |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-11-22 16:27 |