The Law of Corollaries and the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences

It should surprise no one to hear that Syria is the proxy of Iran.  Surprisingly, Iran has just officially acknowledged this.





BEIRUT (AP) — Issuing Tehran’s strongest warning to date, a top Iranian official said Saturday that any attack on Syria would be deemed an attack on Iran, a sign that it will do all it can to protect embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Ali Akbar Velayati, an aide to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, made his comments as Syrian troops conducted offensive air raids against rebels and discovered a trio of tunnels they were using to smuggle weapons in their fight to topple Assad.

The corollary is that Iran is now responsible for all actions by the Assad regime in Syria and beyond. The Consequence is that they are accountable for Assad’s actions.

And he’s already used WMD against the rebels.

Confirmed: Hillary Clinton suffering from double vision after blood clot, fall
Left Pays No Attention to Obama Pledge of No Name Calling
  • Commander_Chico

    I see Rodney is on the Al Qaeda bandwagon.

    Al Qaeda taking over Syria – talk about unintended consequences! Kind of like Iran controlling Iraq now after the U.S. adventure.

    And he’s already used WMD against the rebels.

    [citation required]

    • GarandFan

      Why not ask Hillary! I’m sure she knows who the power players are. On second thought, she might just say “What difference does it make?”

      • Commander_Chico

        Hillary, Susan Rice, Rodney, the Saudis, and Al Zawahiri are on the same side on this issue.

        • No.

          • Commander_Chico

            Still waiting on that citation on WMD use.

          • MichaelLaprarie
          • Commander_Chico

            Great the first entry says there was no attack.


            U.S. Officials Doubt Syrian Rebels’ Chemical Attack Claim

            Opposition activists in Syria are claiming that the embattled regime of Bashar Assad gassed rebel forces in the battleground city of Homs on Sunday. U.S. officials tell Danger Room that they are skeptical about the rebels’ chemical weapon claims, however.

            Al Jazeera reported that seven people died after inhaling a gas sprayed by government forces in a part of Homs held by the rebel Free Syrian Army. “We don’t know what this gas is but medics are saying it’s something similar to sarin,” rebel Raji Rahmet Rabbou told the Qatar-based news organization.

            The “poisonous material” was deployed by government warplanes, Haaretz reported, citing a rebel statement. The Assad regime, meanwhile, is blaming the rebels for the attack.

            Al Jazeera posted two videos it said were obtained from “a field clinic in the city.” The graphic videos appear to depict gasping victims of what could be construed as a nerve agent attack. However, the origins and contents of these videos have yet to be verified by other sources.

            U.S. officials note that several things about the video are inconsistent with a sarin strike. There are complaints of strong smells; sarin is odorless. There are reports that the victims inhaled large amounts of the chemical; a minuscule of amount of inhaled sarin can be fatal.

            “It just doesn’t jibe with chemical weapons,” one U.S. official tells Danger Room.

          • Take a deep breath and hold it…

      • herddog505

        Oh, they asked Hillary a year ago, and she assured us that Baby Assad is a “reformer”.
        Now, in her defense, she actually said that “members of Congress” say he’s a reformer. Just like unnamed “security experts” told her that US personnel in Libya were safe as houses before four of them were murdered due to a video… um… er… oh, what difference does it make???

        I add that I make no doubt that there are members of Congress who regard Baby Assad as a reformer: “You mean, he can use his army against people who oppose his policies and they can’t shoot back unless they steal guns from soldiers??? SUH-WHEEET! We need those reforms here!”

      • retired.military

        They asked Hillary. Her answer “What does it matter?” was sufficient for Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the MSM.

    • herddog505

      OK: then what ought we to do?

      By the way: you were pretty comfy with Barry knocking over GoDaffy (why, it hardly cost us ANYTHING, unlike what Bush did in Iraq!); changed your mind on destabilizing the region and opening it up to AQ, have you?

      While I’m on the topic of the effects of “regime change”, let’s look at a few examples:

      Afghanistan – Soviets leave. Talliban moves in. Talliban supports AQ. AQ murders 3000 Americans on 9-11

      A-stan – US deposes Talliban. AQ tries to stay in. US forces slaughter AQ in job lots (when they don’t run for shelter in Pock-ee-stahn, that is)

      Iraq – US deposes Saddam. AQ tries to move in. US forces slaughter AQ in job lots

      Libya – US deposes GoDaffy. AQ moves in. AQ murders four Americans on 9-11

      The pattern suggests the need for “boots on the ground” (where DID we hear that phrase over and over again about seven years ago???) to ensure – or try to ensure – that something worse doesn’t move in after a thuggish dictatorship is eliminated. If this step isn’t taken, then we usually pay for it later.

      • Commander_Chico

        To answer your question: the USA should do nothing for once. It really does not matter to the American people if Assad stays in power. Either way, the downsides are there. I say the downsides are likely more unpredictable if the salafis take over Syria.

        I repeatedly said I was against Obama’s Libya adventure. I defy you to find otherwise.

        I did point out the hypocrisy of rabid supporters of Bush’s war against Bad Dictator Saddam, which cost $1 trillion and 4000+ KIA bitching about Obama’s war against Bad Dictator Muammar, which cost $30 billion and had zero military KIA.

        • Hmmm….let me think about that. One had a congressional approved AUMF (even Hillary and Kerry voted for it). And the other had bumpkis. Yep. The two situations are just alike. How could I have missed it.

          • herddog505

            I guess that poor, bumbling, half-witted George Bush was better at snookering more people than the erudite, cool, silver-tongued Barry. Even Barry seems to have realized it: he didn’t even try to get Congress to go along with him.

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t remember Reagan getting the Congress to approve when he attacked Libya, either.

          • herddog505

            Tu quo que? Seriously?

            Well, then, what the hell! Barry can order the Army to invade “red state America” (or Flyover Country; whichever you prefer) because “Lincoln did it, too!” Or he can order the Army to bust up Tea Party rallies or gun shows or anything else he doesn’t like because Washington used the military in the Whiskey Rebellion. Would that be cool with you?

            I also suggest that the background and means make a bit of a difference:

            — 1986: Libyan agents blow up an airliner. In retaliation, US aircraft raid Libya

            — 2011: Libya… um… er… Well, they don’t do anything, really. In retal… um… for no good reason that anybody’s explained, US aircraft and ships launch a sustained attack on Libya in order to topple the Libyan government

            Yep: TOTALLY the same.

          • Commander_Chico

            You got the timeline wrong.

            Operation Eldorado Canyon in 1986 was in retaliation for the LaBelle disco bombing in Berlin, which oddly enough the Germans blamed Syria for at the time.

            Pam Am 103 was in December 1988 – there was no known retaliation against Libya for that, because it was first thought to be an Iranian retaliation for the USS Vincennes’s shooting down of Iran Air 655 in July 1988.

          • herddog505

            Thank you for the correction.

          • Commander_Chico

            Not to mention, where’s the Congressional approval for this little Syria operation that Rodney is cheerleading for? CIA is there, now US Army Patriot batteries on the Turkish border, who knows what else?

            Where is the debate about the US Government’s efforts to topple a government we are not at war with?

          • herddog505

            You tell us.

            Frankly, the Congress has been MIA on many issues in the past several years: Iraq, WoT, budget, Libya, Syria, czars, etc. I suppose that it’s easier (and safer) to wave their fingers in the air about trivia rather than actually vote on something that they might have to defense in the next election.

          • Commander_Chico

            Few have the courage to stop war. Plus AIPAC is in favor of this adventure, too, and they are powerful.

          • herddog505

            Well, TEH JOOOOOOS had to show up sooner or later…

          • If AIPAC is that powerful why is Pollard still in prison?

          • jim_m

            Everything Chico advocates ultimately boils down to someone else did something wrong so his side is justified in doing something wrong. He will use that to justify gulags eventually.

        • herddog505

          My recollection is that, while you weren’t cheerleading Barry and Hill’s Excellent Libyan Adventure, it certainly didn’t bother you too much as we were able to do it without the loss of blood and treasure that Bush and Co. cost us in Iraq.

          Libya was basically like Iraq, except Libya cost less than a billion and there were no US deaths, and Iraq cost more than a trillion with 4486 US military deaths and tens of thousands maimed and mentally injured.

          But let’s take it as a given that you didn’t care for the Libyan… war? Conflict? What DO we call it?.. and that, in your books, Barry is just as much a liar, murderer, and tool of Big Oil / Saudi Arabia / whoever as Bush was. I apologize for implying that you thought differently.

          I find myself in agreement that Syria is basically none of our business, just as Darfur was none of our business. I feel some moral qualms writing that as I want to have a good opinion of our country and like to think of the United States as the ultimate Good Guy, willing to always help out victims of tyranny and oppression.

          There is also the issue of “internationalism”. You know: the “global test” that lefties assured us was absolutely vital to guiding US actions and that Bush (naturally) failed? Is it a good idea for the world to sit back and ignore regimes that murder their own citizens in job lots, possibly with chemical weapons? Is it not a good thing to stop them doing so if they can?
          And what WOULD make Syria (or Libya, Darfur, Iraq, Iran, A-stan, etc.) “our business”? Has some other country got to actually attack us (or host some terrorist group that does so) before we’ll act? Is it not smarter to get them BEFORE they get us?

          I am reminded of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series from World War II. In (IIRC) the film “Prelude to War”, Capra made the point that World War II actually started in the early ’30s when Japan ginned up an excuse to invade Manchuria. But, as narrator Walter Huston pointed out, nobody could convince a taxi driver in New York to perhaps give up his life for some mud huts in China, just as nobody could convince a London or Paris cab driver to give up his life for mud huts in Ethiopia when Mussolini invaded that country a few years later.

          Is it possible that, if “the world” says “enough!” to genocide and despotism enough times, would-be despots and genocidal maniacs will get the idea and NOT do it? Honestly, I don’t know.

          • Commander_Chico

            I give you credit for not following the party line and agreeing it’s not our business. Syria’s really step one to the Bomb Iran Plan.

            The days of Syria bothering the USA are long gone. Remember they were in our Gulf War coalition? Remember that the USA has recently sent our detainees to Syria for torture?

            You have to take the recent demonization of Assad with a grain of salt. Is he a dictator? Yes. Has he oppressed and killed citizens of Syria before the uprising? Yes, but so have our “friends,” Saudi Arabia, Mubarak’s Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain. In the context of the region, Assad is not extraordinarily bad, and he has the virtue of running a secular government.

            Not to mention what Sacred Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank. This example is particularly pertinent – when the government of Syria fights an armed insurgency of Islamists, every KIA of the Islamists or adjacent civilians is a massacre on CNN, Fox and Al Jazeera. When Israel bombs the shit out of Gaza fighting a few Islamist insurgents and similarly kills civilians, that’s OK.

            The whole thing is so fucked up and full of lies it makes me sick. What bothers me is that I haven’t been to Damascus and when I get there it will be dry and the Barada brewery will be closed by the new Islamist regime.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and standing up to Iran before it gets nukes would be a bad idea. Chico believes that we should make sure our enemies are as strong as possible.

            When obama does do something about Iran, Chico will be in lockstep right behind him. There will be no memory of any criticism or opposition.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, at least you agree with me that Syria is phase one of the attack on Iran.

            It has nothing to do with humanitarian principles, or the nature of the Syrian Ba’athist regime.

          • herddog505

            Come now: if Barry really wanted to go after Iran (at the behest of TEH OLIGARCHY, of course), he’d do it: no need for bombing Syria as an excuse to get to Iran.

          • Commander_Chico

            Changing the regime in Syria is to isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon, and secure Israel from a retaliatory attack from the north in the event of an attack on Iran.

            Say what you will, but there would be a shitload of money to be made in a sanctions-free Iran. Just like people (not so many Americans, mind you) are making a shitload of money in Iraq now.

          • herddog505

            Are you serious? Barry, a year after his SecState declared Baby Assad a “reformer”, a year and a half after knocking off GoDaffy for no good reason, and after literally decades of tension with Iran, is sending Patriot missiles to Turkey to knock off Syria to secure Israel so he can go after the ayatollahs?

            I ask again: Are you serious?

            If there’s so much money to be made, then why not just go for it? And as for defending Israel, I thought that is was taken as a given in lefty circles that Israel has nothing to fear from her neighbors and that TEH JOOOOOOS are the area’s REAL aggressors, constantly attacking their peaceloving, helpless neighbors in order to steal their land.

          • jim_m

            NO I don’t you psychopath. I don’t because I am not some anti-Semitic conspiracy freak like you.

            Syria is Syria and not some pretext for additional wars. Certainly it may lead elasewhere and someone may make a reasonable argument for why both Syria and Iran need to be dealt with. However, your conspiracy BS is not reality.

        • jim_m

          It really does not matter to the American people if Assad stays in power.

          That’s right. Letting Syria become another radical islamist nation is no big deal. And besides Chico doesn’t give a damn how many browned skinned people die. They simply are not important. That’s why it was OK for the obama ATF to give weapons to the drug cartels. Dead foreigners don’t matter and they really don’t matter when they are dark complected.

  • Pingback: Israel Goes There | Wizbang()