Syria: Upping the Stakes

Syria: Upping the Stakes

by Stephen Lendman

Things appear heading closer toward full-scale US intervention. The fullness of time will have final say.

On April 28, The New York Times headlined “Lawmakers Call for Stronger US Action in Syria,” saying:
Republicans “took President Obama to task Sunday for what they characterized as dangerous inaction in Syria….”

Senators John McCain (R. AZ) and Lindsey Graham are Armed Services Committee members. They “warn(ed) that failure to intervene in Syria would embolden nations like Iran and North Korea.”

“If we keep this hands-off approach to Syria, this indecisive action toward Syria, kind of not knowing what we’re going to do next, we’re going to start a war with Iran because Iran’s going to take our inaction in Syria as meaning we’re not serious about their nuclear weapons program,” said Graham.

Michigan Republican Representative Mike Rogers claims Assad’s been using chemical weapons for the past two years. Obama’s “red line” can’t be a “dotted line,” he said.
On April 28, the Wall Street Journal headlined “US Weighs Syria Response,” saying:
“Lawmakers pressed the Obama administration to intervene in Syria’s civil war, citing the regime’s alleged chemical-weapons use….”

They urge intervention short of troops on the ground. The White House and Pentagon have concerns about Syrian air defenses.

Joint Chiefs chairman General Martin Dempsey calls them the single biggest obstacle to US intervention. Since 2007, Russia’s been involved in upgrading them.

US officials believe its technicians provide assistance on the ground. According to US intelligence, Russia began shipping SA-22 Pantsir-S1 units to Syria.

It’s a combination surface-to-air missile and 30 mm antiaircraft gun. It has a digital targeting system. It’s mounted on a combat vehicle. It’s mobile, easy to move and conceal.

In 2009, Moscow began upgrading Syria’s outdated analog SA-3 surface-to-air missile systems. SA-26 Pechora-2M systems replaced them. They have a 17-mile operational range.

Syria’s SA-5 also concerns Washington. Their operational range is 175 miles. They can take out US planes from Cyprus. It’s a NATO base used during Libyan bombings.
Despite no credible evidence, Washington, Britain and Israel claim Assad used chemical weapons at least twice.

Pressure mounts toward intervention. At issue is whether, Russia, Iran and/or Hezbollah will respond. Doing so would embroil the region. Possibly it could escalate to a global conflict.

According to Haaretz military correspondent Amos Harel, Washington’s in “no hurry to go after Assad’s chemical weapons.” A major operation means boots on the ground. Obama wants it avoided.

Last year, IDF chief Benny Gantz addressed two possible options. One involved a large-scale ground operation. The other was a targeted air assault. If Israel attacks Syria, he prefers the latter.

Obama administration officials believe controlling Syrian chemical weapons requires at least 75,000 US troops. Other countries would likely send more.

Washington claims knowledge of at least 18 sites. A military operation against them “would require precise intelligence at an extraordinary level,” said Harel.

Intelligence experts aren’t sure if Iran and/or Hezbollah “would help defend the Syrian chemical weapon sites in the event of a US-led military operation targeting them.”

Doing so “would just be the beginning of America’s headache.” Weapons would have to be discovered, collected, and perhaps taken outside Syria.

More here
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/30/syria-upping-the-stakes/