How to behave in the United States against Syria and Iran against the backdrop of mass unrest in the Islamic world?

In the near future, when the Islamic world very aggressively reacted to the emergence of the Web trailer movie "Innocence of Muslims" publicly burning American and Israeli flags, attacks on embassies of Western countries, arson diplomatically machines, pogroms offices of foreign companies in a new light and proved itself a question about the likely invasion of coalition forces in Syria and Iran .

How to behave in the United States against Syria and Iran against the backdrop of mass unrest in the Islamic world?

Almost raging Middle East and North Africa forced the main ideologists of unleashing "liberation" or "democratic" wars to look at the situation from a slightly different side. Of course, the new head of the Arab countries, which are the actual puppets of the United States simply do not have the ability to delay the situation under control. At the same time, the leaders of these countries have to make yourself a difficult choice: either to support the folk performances, most of which are provoked by their own design Islamists, or put a hard barrier to these organizations and to support the West. Of course, that none of the new presidents and heads of the interim administration to make such a choice simply can not. As a trivial example, you can name the new Egyptian President Mohammed Mursi, which he is openly Islamist political forces, and with the support of specific and more constructive forces was in the presidential chair. In this regard, the question arises: can the Mursi to show political will and hard to say those who are now meeting at the square Egyptian cities, the brakes and go home. Of course, if Mohammed Mursi will allow yourself to do it, then after a couple of weeks it can wait retaliation by yesterday's adherents. And lose the support of the Islamists Mursi now does not.

But on the other hand is now an Egyptian favorite was on his own post, and with the help of the West. In the end, you can apply for a long time on the subject of what is specifically Egyptian people went to Tahrir to overthrow Hosni Mubarak and hoist the banner of the presidential palace of democracy, but this version is still topical today except in the United States. Though what adekvatnomyslyaschy person realizes exactly what the West had a hand in terms of the destruction of the old political order in Egypt. So, it turns out that it is up to support anti-US stocks to Mursi, too, to put it mildly, is not an option. Not an option, in the 1-x, since the Egyptian economy at the moment than ever dependent on the U.S. economy, and in-2, Murcia and he is well aware that there is at the beginning of the revolution, the revolution is not present at the end, and means nothing would prevent Washington and use the new Egyptian president as a sacrifice to appease the raging crowd. Such a lamb to the slaughter, or Mubarak-2 …

That is such as read classic daunting situation the Western world and the United States, first, you need to make their own choices. Or does this manifest itself in the choice of continuing to support the disparate radical transformation in Syria and Iran to another government winning chaos, or on the Atlantic coast all the same to rethink their position on these issues.

Let us try to imagine what option can select South American power. By the way, do not forget that all these "adventures" taking place in the hot stage of the presidential race in the United States, where each of the candidates is less chance for maneuver (in particular they do not have enough current President Barack Obama.)

So, the first option: South American authorities decide picturesque flex its muscles, causing their aircraft carriers scurry back and forth in the territorial waters of the country, shrouded in anti-Western unrest. This move will not look for another as Washington's complacency: say, we have responded to the problem of, and at any moment ready to punish all those who have decided to speak out against "peaceful and transparent" policy of white houses, the Municipal Department and Congress. But even if the unrest in the Islamic world will grow into something more than the obvious flagoszhiganie and throwing stones embassies of Western countries (although the "something more" of killing a South American ambassador and other diplomats in Libya has already happened), then the Americans anything else, apart from the uncovered and shrouded guns on its own warships, noting simply fail. After all, to provoke revolution is much easier than later somehow keep it under control. At this time segodnyaschy South American administration will continue to lead the extensive conversation about democracy in the world, the need to overthrow Assad and pressure on Iran with a view to the country's nuclear programm that was curtailed.

But, you see, somehow stupid talk about the new steps of democratization, as with old far not all right. Again, keep in rainbow forces in Syria, which act under the dark banner of "Al-Qaeda" against Bashar al-Assad, when these same forces are killing American diplomats in other countries — well, this is, I'm sorry, the top political oddities.

But still not quite so long ago Barack Obama himself stated that precisely because of his administration's pragmatic policy of democracy came to the land of Near East and North Africa. And here — in for you! Hit below the belt with all the consequences. No desire to make far-reaching conclusions, but the feeling that someone is ruthlessly Obama framed with the introduction of inadequate film about the Prophet Muhammad as the ability of the new collection of vocal protest movements in the Islamic world is not leaving. After all, we are not going to think that all those hundreds of thousands of people who are now burning flags and embassies stormed from the beginning to the end of ourselves revised "innocent Muslims" and came to the conclusion to go to the Americans … Of course, that someone found a pain point and well it pointed to put on the ears whole Muslim world.

If you find those to whom it may now be at hand, for some reason it did not "Taliban" or "al-Qaeda" come to mind, and strength, which are either in the United States, or very, very closely related to them . The Republicans? You say they are the most since also accused of slander … So, I will throw myself to such a question without an answer …

The second option: South American administration after some time in the sweat starts to peel in all directions, showing the Islamists, "who is the boss." With all of this through the UN force will push the latest resolution on Syria to the need of foreign intervention, and then pulled his hands already, and Iran. To do this, the Pentagon receives additional funding from Congress, because the reasons for the threat hanging over the most democratic country in the world, at all times impressed with the congressmen, no matter what party they may belong. True, there are several obstacles appear immediately.

In 1-x, at the moment it is sensitive to any whole Muslim world almost rebelled against the United States (it is 10's of both in Africa and Asia), and wage war with so many enemies of Americans can not, well, they can not. Precedent to wage war against almost a quarter of the modern world, in the history of this country was not, as there was here and scale figures of Napoleon or Alexander the Great. In the
United States in recent years, once more used to attack a flock on the 1st enemy …

In-2, in this case, Republican lawmakers are leaning in the case of begging the existing management of the new funds to the latest war situation just freeze. Republicans are not profitable, that Obama has even raised its rating on the fraction inside the country due to the very ability to take action to protect the interests of the United States. Chances are, if the funding of new campaigns and will open a discussion, it was only after the presidential election.

B-3, in general, it is not clear against whom the present situation in the United States to wage war if the unrest raging in those countries where the States themselves not so long ago planted democracy. Now we even start that Assad should be removed, so that his place was taken by the "democratic" forces, the very little fun.

The only thing the white-washed house (with the active support of Israel) is able to focus, it's the fact that the need to immediately eliminate the Iranian nuclear program from, that enriched uranium falling into the hands of Islamic radicals raged. If there is a particular case, the newcomer brewed mess in the Middle East has its explanation.

There is also another option, which very much unlikely. It may be that the United States suddenly abandon the idea of regime change in Syria, the pressure on Iran, well, generally revise the results of the Arab revolutions. This Universal repentance: they say were wrong, recognize their mistake, more so do not be … interesting, someone believes in it? ..

Like this post? Please share to your friends: