Columns


Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target



Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins — I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow — it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind's oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president — as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — and when it just might be a little more stable.

Iran is Israel's enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America's enemy. So fire the missiles
at Iran's only Arab ally.

I am old enough to remember that when Iraq — then America's ally — used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, West did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons West had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America's enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on the West's behalf. And thousands — not hundreds — died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it's worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London — it was Saddam's mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn't matter now — America merely called for both sides to exercise "restraint". And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez Al Assad sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. "Hama Rules" is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.

Anyway, there's a different Brotherhood around these days — and Obama couldn't even bring himself to say "boo" when their elected president got deposed.

But hold on. Didn't Iraq — when it was "our" (West's) ally against Iran — also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam — US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington — and we didn't care a tinker's curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.

I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds — quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded — after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we're likely to get from outside Damascus — "alleged" gas victims.

So what in heaven's name is the West doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria's awesome tragedy, suddenly — now, after months and years of prevarication — the West is getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But the West should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now?

I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar Al Assad's army might just be winning against the rebels whom the West secretly armed. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah — Iran's ally in Lebanon — the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be
tolerated by the West.

And while we're on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel's Likudist policy — to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left — continues apace.

But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, Paris and the rest of the "civilised" world, it's only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful.

The Independent


Share 

 Rate this Article
Rates : 2, Average : 5


Post a Comment

Did you like this section? Leave a comment!
Your Name : Your Email Address :
Your Comment :
Enter Image Text:
 

Reader Comments




Mr. Fisk is a cultural imperialist whose irrelevant nouveau-lib west-centric ideology has dismissed ALL secular Mid Easterners. He thinks hes the only voice that counts where that part of the world is concerned and we Mid Easterners reject his EXTREMELY shallow and cursory analysis on our part of the world.