Exactly the opposite.

Submitted by Sophia (Switzerland), Jun 14, 2012 at 16:06

Daniel,

Regarding your points, I would say that you could argue even more forcefully for exactly the opposite.

You - It lessens the chances of Damascus from starting a war with Israel or re-occupying Lebanon.

I could as easily be used by Damascus as an excuse for diversion. Remember that they already stirred up tension on the Israeli border twice. They even had Palestinians flown in from Iran with their "handlers".

You - It increases the chances that Iranians, living under the thumb of the mullahs who are Assad's key ally, will draw inspiration from the Syrian uprising and likewise rebel against their rulers.

Why?? They noticed already in 2009 that nobody did anything to support or help them, especially Obama. And their lesson from Syria is exactly the opposite, the regime can slaughter as many as it wish and nobody is going to do anything.

You - It inspires greater Sunni Arab anger at Tehran, especially as the Islamic Republic of Iran has been providing arms, finance, and technology to help repress Syrians.

How could that increase the already present anger since Iran has for a very long time been supporting Assad (father and son)?

You - It relieves the pressure on non-Muslims: indicative of the new thinking, Jordanian Salafi leader Abou Mohamad Tahawi recently stated that "The Alawi and Shi'i coalition is currently the biggest threat to Sunnis, even more than the Israelis."

This argument contradicts your own argument above since it's implies that there is already anger or pressure which was exactly my point to your previous argument.

You - It foments Middle Eastern rage at Moscow and Beijing for supporting the Assad regime.

And what has this "rage" accomplished? Nothing so far because it is just talk nothing more. No Arab government have actually done anything to practical show their displeasure against Russia or for that matter China.

Remember that the Arab league just three-four months ago were in cohorts with Russia in their peace plan and observation mission.

Where the Qatari prime minister and foreign minister Sheikh Hamad Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani tried later to undo some of the damage by demanding military intervention to stop the bloodletting in Syria after he had despaired of a Libyan-style Western-Arab operation, he was publicly rebuked from New York by Lavrov. And the Qatari prime minister and foreign minister had to meekly toe the line

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".