This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Confronting enemies works best one at a time. If a pro-Western regime replaces Assad, Iran loses its key regional ally. Isolated, it's more vulnerable.
Attacking both countries simultaneously means war on two fronts against militaries far from pushovers. Though no match for Washington or Israel's nuclear arsenal, both can hit back hard enough to raise concerns in high places.
As a result, downplaying Iran's nuclear issue for now plays into likely planned war on Syria. Daily events suggest it. So-called Friends of Syria urge it. Heated rhetoric practically demands it. Calls grow for involving foreign troops.
Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal openly called killing Syrians a "great idea." Riyadh's been actively involved in doing it for months along with Qatar, Turkey, Israel, and other rogue regional states.
Igor Korotchenko , editor-in-chief of the Russian Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defense) magazine told Russia Today:
"The armed opposition which rejects dialogue is responsible for escalating violence in Syria," falsely blamed on Assad. He added that UK and other foreign forces in Syria are directly aiding insurgents. Yet "despite all these developments," he said, "Damascus is still open for dialogue with the opposition."
He also explained that unrest is mainly in small parts of the country, contrary to Western media reports. In fact, most Syrians support Assad, but spurious accounts suggest otherwise.
America's Media Discover No Iranian Nuclear Threat
On February 24, The New York Times headlined, "US Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb," saying:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
