If you would have asked me as late as yesterday about Iran's
possible reaction to pending, may not pending now, Western actions in Syria, I
would have told you not to worry.
Well, today, I am not near as confident I could stick with
that answer.
I'm still willing to stick by my assessment of Iran not wishing to risk conflict over Syria and at the
same time not willing to expend Hezbollah capital beyond a certain point.
As I started to read more and more comments coming from some
who really understand the region, I began to realize I may have to reevaluate
what Iran
is willing to risk.
It's still true the Persians intend to keep the majority of
Hezbollah's capabilities for any future conflict with Israel .
It's also true Hezbollah comprehends what is now at stake
for them in Lebanon .
So, lets go back to a basic premises I spoke of well over
two years ago.
Would Iran
be willing to push the region to war over Syria ?
I was in the camp of those who believed the Persians could
not accomplish their master plans with the pending loss of both Syria and Hamas and so when the final status of Syria became an
issue, they would do whatever they had to.
Then as time went on, I convinced myself Assad's Masters
might just live with a Syria
in crisis... a crisis that would still allow Hezbollah to operate near the Lebanese's
border.
Here is the problem and it's a huge problem.
The evidence of what Iran is willing to do and not do is
growing more scrambled with each passing day.
So, yesterday when key figures in the Iranian government
began to speak of the perils of Western actions on Syria , the " what are they
willing to do" question rose to the top of the stack once again!
As the rest of the world began to question Iranian resolve,
the UK
government added a totally new variable.
A "NO" vote on conflict!
Now, does that mean the pending Western attack is not going
to take place?
The answer must be given by two different groups.
A: Those who are in the region both for and against Assad.
B: Those in the West
who are truly on the fence for supporting the plan.
How does Iran
and Assad perceive this decision?
How does Iran
not interpret this pull back as a sign the West really doesn't want to walk
into yet another open-ended conflict?
Why would the West believe that danger is there?
How timely were Iran 's statements?
If the region was not confusing enough, the events of the past 24 hrs have made them
nearly impossible to comprehend.
It's more than obvious the region is growing more complex by
the hour and even more importantly far more dangerous.
So, as of the 29th of Aug, what is the overall picture /
forecast?
To me, it shapes up like this.
For reasons nobody can really put their definitive finger
on, the Assad Camp decided to increase
the tensions in the entire region and do so in
a dramatic fashion.
Just as the West seemed poised to act on events they now
claim are "unacceptable", the Alliance
of the West seems to have faltered!
Now, the question becomes, does this possible delay on the
Western action provide a valuable slice of time to come back to the table, or
has Assad and his Masters suddenly gotten exactly what they wanted....... a
crack in the Western resolve?
Did the chemical event do exactly what it was designed to
do?
Did it expose the West's aversion to conflict?
Someone needs to ask the Tsar, for you see, that's who I
believe is pulling the strings at this moment in time.
Confidence... If that is what Assad's Masters are feeling
tonight... I would warn them to pay close attention to the little country stuck
between Lebanon
and Syria ....
for you see... they are more than capable of destroying that ill-conceived
confidence!
