The Islamist “mafia don”, Hassan Nasrallah, continues to prove the more skeptical analysts correct by refusing to disarm itself. Syria, has played the familiar “on/off” card of diplomacy in first refusing UN troops on its borders, then accepting non uniformed Unifil troops, then rejecting the idea altogether. All this of course means that there is once again a flow of weapons streaming into Lebanon from Syria.
The US is apparently having none of that, and has frozen its aid to the Lebanese government until; ” international troops are positioned along the Syria-Lebanon border”.
Syria is of course the wild card here, and knows it. The timing of the recent attack on the US embassy in Damascus is highly suspicious, because it came in the wake of repeated Syrian “flip flopping” on the border issue, which is nothing more than a “red herring position” (since UN forces are still positioned along the entire “no man’s land in the Golan Heights between Syria and Israel for the past 30 yrs.).
The entire epsiode reminds me of the attack on the Danish embassy while the Syrian government “claimed its inability” to stop the enraged crowd from trashing the consulate. This of course all happened in a tightly controlled totalitarian state, where typewriters are licenced and movement restricted. Just how did these terrorists manage to obtain explosives and weapons in a police state, and then succeed in making it all the way into the highly restricted area of the US embassy in the first place?
It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that Syria had engineered the attack itself, or had prior knowledge of the attack and allowed it to proceed, then followed up with an “impressive show of force” afterwards. The dramatic display of the Syrian military “after the attack”, makes Damascus look serious about terrorism. But I have to ask, on just what side of terrorism, are the Syrians serious about, defeating it, or helping it? KGS