Right Web | November 12, 2013
Veteran Middle East hawk Paul Wolfowitz—a key architect of the Iraq War and a driving force behind George W. Bush’s neoconservative agenda—has emerged as a vocal advocate of intervening in Syria's civil war. Insisting that Syria is "not Iraq in 2003" but rather "Iraq in 1991," Wolfowitz has suggested that Washington can avert a later war in Syria by supporting the country's rebels now, as Wolfowitz says the U.S. should have done for Shia rebels in Iraq in the early 1990s. He asserts that the cause of Syria's rebels "has more sympathy across the Arab world than even the Arab-Israeli issue" and claims that "we would not pay a price for" intervening.
From the Wires
In its agreement with the P5+1, Iran has agreed to inspections of its nuclear enrichment facilities that are considerably more intrusive than required by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The recent deal struck between Iran and the P5+1 on Iran's nuclear enrichment program should accommodate everyone but the war hawks.
The U.S. Israel lobby has made clear that it will fight the implementation of any interim agreement with Iran that does not require Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear reactors.
The U.S. Senate appears unlikely to vote on any new Iran sanctions before December 2013, giving the administration time to reach an interim deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program.
The scandal surrounding the NSA’s surveillance of U.S. allies is the latest evidence that the United States has grown increasingly alienated from its clients.
Despite strident opposition in some quarters to efforts to reach an accord between Washington and Tehran, circumstances are gradually changing in favor of a deal.
Saudi concerns that U.S. rapprochement with Iran would sideline the conservative Sunni Gulf kingdom are key to understanding Saudi Arabia's public spat with Washington.