2003- Israeli Ambassador to US Calls for ‘Regime Change’ in Iran, Syria  The Israeli ambassador in Washington called for “regime change” in Iran and Syria on Monday through diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions and what he called “psychological pressure.”Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said the U.S. invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein helped create great opportunities for Israel but it was “not enough.””It has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran,” “There are other means that can be exhausted … The way to deal with Iran for instance is to delegitimize its regime and the way to do that is applying political pressure … and to really apply economic sanctions.”
Babbin: Regime Change, Again – National Review Online
(by Jed Babbin 
(HARDCORE ZIONAZI).. Jed Babbin, “author of Inside the Asylum, was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the administration of President George H.W. Bush  and a member of the Pentagon military analyst program      That unpredictability has been fed by our inconstancy in dealing with him and the terrorists he uses as a tool of national policy. Hezbollah — already a tool of Syria and Iran — killed more than 200 Americans in Beirut in 1983. We withdrew with our tails between our legs. About ten years later, Warren Christopher warned Bashar’s father not to risk our displeasure. And we did nothing. Only a month ago, U.N. ambassador John Negroponte told the world that Syria had chosen the wrong side in the war on terrorism. That painted a big bull’s eye on Assad’s forehead. And then we did what we always do: nothing. Diplomacy is like golf: If you want to make a good shot, you have to follow through. It’s long past time for us to start.
Regime change must be our goal, because nothing else will work. The Syrian Baathists will do what their Iraqi brethren did. Stall, talk, whine to the U.N., and continue their business of supporting terrorism. Before we decide to remove Assad militarily, we should yank the diplomatic levers with all the force we can muster. Just because Foggy Bottom doesn’t think we have any way to change Syria’s conduct diplomatically don’t mean it’s so. In fact, there are a lot of ways we should be turning up the heat on Bashar Assad, and some may reduce his ability to provide financial support for terrorists. Making a list of demands on Syria would be an invitation to an endless and fruitless negotiation. We tried that in Iraq, and those Baathists ran us around for years.
Congress’s new “Syrian Accountability Act” is another adventure in wishful thinking. We should act, not talk.Here are some general guidelinesOur military is making progress in closing the Iraq-Syria border, but we need to do more./There are negotiations now underway to build a new oil pipeline to Syria from Iraq, and to establish new oil contracts to benefit Syria. We should stop both forthwith. The Syrians lack oil. Shutting off their supply will squeeze Assad like no other economic sanction can./Our pals in the Axis of Weasels are negotiating a new economic-cooperation agreement with Syria. It will be signed next year unless we stop it. We should make it clear to the EU that this, like so many other things they do in the Middle East, is unacceptable.
Syria is a terrorist state, and must be treated as such by all. We should condemn the proposed agreement long, hard, and continuously. And we should implement significant economic sanctions against those nations that trade with terrorist states./We should hold no more meetings with Assad. Let him and his Weasel pals stew in the heat we are generating/Most importantly, beginning now, and while all this diplomatic kabuki dance goes on, we should act. President Bush should order covert intelligence and military actions against Syria, and Hezbollah terrorists there and in Lebanon. We should not hesitate to operate with the Israelis, whose intelligence apparatus there is better than ours, and whose military can operate with ours secretly.
An intense covert campaign should be used to topple Assad’s regime and damage Hezbollah severely. It could do so while saving us most of the cost — in blood and treasure — to do the same thing in another big military campaign. There is no reason to not to take this action, other than to salve the sensibilities of the U.N. Which is no reason at all.
SYRIA 2012
2005- A hungry eye for Damascus? – The Boston Globe
Perle told the Journal that ”there’s no reason to think engagement with Syria will bring about any change,” and he is worried that the conquistador zeal to spread democracy is diminishing within the Bush administration. Syria’s strongman Bashir Assad ”has never been weaker, and we should take advantage of that,” according to Perle. One remembers that Perle was involved in the writing of a paper for Israel’s Likud Party that said getting rid of Saddam Hussein should be a big priority. That same paper recommended doing damage to Syria as well.
2006- Syria: U.S. Policy Options – Council on Foreign Relations  The United States has censured Assad’s government for suppressing internal dissent, permitting Islamist fighters to cross its border into Iraq, supplying arms to Hezbollah.
Isolating the regime is a strategy advocated by some experts, including Michael Young, opinion editor for Lebanon’s Daily Star, who writes, “History has shown that engaging this Syrian regime is a waste of time.” Young says Assad has little interest in helping the United States foster regional stability, as ongoing regional violence helps justify the severe security apparatus with which he maintains his hold on power. Futhermore, “Granting Damascus a reprieve from its well-deserved international isolation would undermine what remains of U.S. credibility  with Syrian reformers and Lebanese democrats,” writes David Schenker ,a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Some advocates of isolating Syria seem to be holding out hope that the ongoing UN investigation into the Hariri assassination will condemn and possibly bring down Assad’s regime.Regime change is advocated by those who believe the dangers of maintaining Assad’s Syria outweigh the risks of toppling it.
Regime-change advocates fall into two camps: those who hope to encourage a violent or non-violent rebellion against Assad within Syria, and those who believe U.S. troops could or should help topple Assad. Though he does not advocate a U.S. invasion, Max Boot , CFR senior fellow for national security studies, says Israel should consider attacking Syria. “History suggests that only force, or the threat of force, can win substantial concessions from Syria ,” Boot writes in the Los Angeles Times. Others advocating Syrian regime change point to allegations by U.S. and Israeli officials that in the weeks prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Syria allowed Saddam to hide his chemical weapons on its territory.
Of the three U.S. policy options, many experts say this is the least likely to become the guiding paradigm. “Given what’s happening in Iraq, I’m not sure the administration is willing to instigate regime change at this moment,” saysEmile el-Hokayem , a Middle East security analyst at the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington, a nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security. In his book, Leverett argues that pursuing military-led regime change in Syria would severely strain American forces and fan anti-American sentiment in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
What is the extent of Syrian support for terror?“Twenty-five years ago, you’d see direct Syrian involvement in terrorist acts,” Byman says. “Now it’s much more subtle.” Although Syrian agents are suspected in the high-profile car bomb assassinations of Hariri and other Lebanese opponents, Syrian policy on terrorism now is generally what Byman calls “passive support.” Still, Syria remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism  because it allows extremist groups to have offices in Damascus and keeps control of its borders lax enough that jihadis can use the country as a transit station to Iraq.
Syrian officials have publicly condemned terrorism, which they distinguish from the “legitimate armed resistance” of many Palestinian groups.During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Syria was widely accused of being the primary transit hub for munitions bound for Hezbollah. For this reason, the UN force in Lebanon is trying to police the Syria-Lebanon border, something to which Assad has voiced loud opposition.
2006- Syria, Iran – By Michael Ledeen – The Corner – National Review Online   (by Michel ledeen (RABID ZIO-LIKUDNIK DOBERMAN)  The great opportunity, and indeed the just consequence of the attack against Israel, is to bring down Assad along with destroying Hezbollah. That must be the mission. There are many Syrians who are ready to act, but the first step toward the removal of Assad is for the president and the secretary of state to call for regime change in Syria.The hard work on the ground belongs to the Israelis, and you are right to say we have done well to support them rhetorically. But we have to go after Assad, and we have not done that. Perhaps this is due to my own ignorance; it may be going on behind the scenes (not movie scenes, the real ones).
I hope so. But I don’t see it. I don’t see or hear our leaders condemning the Syrians and the Iranians, aside from the original White House statement (in direct conflict with the statement from the State Dept, let’s not forget) holding Syria and Iran responsible. Okay, so they’re responsible. And then?There has to be a “then.” And it has to be aimed at the total destruction of Hizbollah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus.Otherwise, it will all rewind. There will be no semblance of a strong, free, and independent Lebanon, and the next time around things will be much worse. You will see more and more Iranian missiles, in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in Israel. It’s a war, not a debate
America should seize every opportunity to force regime change in Syria and Iran, a former senior adviser to the White House has urged.”We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep,” said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney’s Middle East adviser.”That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary.” He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime. Iran was using Syria as its proxy against Israel and among Sunni Arabs and both regimes had to be overthrown, he insisted.”It has to be, because who they are is now defined around provoking a wider clash of civilisations with the West. It is precisely to avoid this that we need to win now.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *