You know, Hawk, I never realized how vulnerable Syria was with a non Sunni leadership. I guess it totally escaped me due to the Baathist name plate of the leadership. The US could really tip the scales if they pushed a Sunni revolt to assume control of the government. That would really put an end to Iranian influence in the area. The Shiite connection between Iran and the Baathist Alawite could be severed, disrupting the balance of power against the interests of Iran.
You see, it really helps to play the name game with all these terrorist leaders in the ME. Eventually, you figure out their weaknesses. I would love to see a Sunni liberation in Syria. That would potentially alienate Iran from the whole Israeli, Syrian, & Lebanon triangle.
IMO, the policy of the ME has to be about putting the majority of people into power in every situation. Shiites in Lebanon, Shiites in Iraq, Sunnis in Afghanistan - not Taliban Sunnis, and Sunnis in Syria. Really, the only area with that much room for "sectarian" conflict is Iraq, because there is no clear cut majority of Shiites or Sunni, don't forget the Kurds.
It would be nice to see Iran standing alone as the only terrorist state with any power left in the region. Surrounded by 800 million Sunnis, how the hell would Iran exert any degree of influence if they did not have an ally in Syria to support their demonstrations of insanity.
Enough for me for one day, I have to go check my facts so I don't confuse anyone.<g> |
