When President Obama announced a few weeks ago that the United States would be sending arms to the Syrian "rebels," the majority of Americans let out a disappointing sigh and many warned weapons intended for good would end up in the wrong, violent hands. Turns out, those warnings were correct. Weapons sent to the Middle East by the U.S. are now in the hands of Hezbollah, the largest terrorist organization in world with direct connections to Iran.
Advertisement
U.S. and Western weapons have been reaching Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting to keep Bashar Assad's forces in power in Syria.There's no doubt these weapons will be used to attack Israel.
Analysts say it's unclear if the weapons were captured, stolen or bought on the black market in Syria, Turkey, Iraq or Libya. Propaganda photographs from Shiite militias posted on dozens of websites and Facebook pages show the weapons were acquired in new condition, said Phillip Smyth, an analyst for Jihadology.net, a site affiliated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Many of the weapons are things the militias "shouldn't really have their hands on," Smyth said. Iranians love to show "they have weapons and systems that are very close to the Americans."
The ability of Assad's allies to obtain U.S. weapons is one of many reasons the United States should not supply Syrian rebels with weapons, which President Obama said he would start to do last month, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., former chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
A recent Rasmussen Poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans want the U.S. to stay out of Syria and the Washington Post editorial board predicts Obama's policies on the country will fail.
Obama’s feckless Syria policy is likely to fail
A decision to intervene in a foreign war, even in a small way, ought to be the subject of a direct presidential address to the country and an open debate in Congress. Yet the news that the United States would, after more than two years of dithering, finally provide direct military aid to rebels came in a conference call with reporters by White House aide Ben Rhodes on June 13. While letting the world know about it, Mr. Obama chose to designate his action as covert, stifling public discussion and restricting details on the arms supplies to members of the congressional intelligence committees. In some of his most extensive public comments on Syria since then, in an interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose on June 17, Mr. Obama spent much of his time arguing the case against intervention, insisting that “we have to not rush into one more war in the Middle East.”
Advertisement
Join the conversation as a VIP Member