Iran and Syria say they are to form a common front to face challenges and threats from overseas.

"We are ready to help Syria on all grounds to confront threats," Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said after meeting Syrian PM Naji al-Otari.

Both countries are under intense US pressure, with Washington accusing Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons.

US tensions with Syria have soared since the apparent suicide attack that killed former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Many Lebanese blame Monday's car bombing in Beirut on Syria, but the Syrian government has denied it was responsible for the blast.

The US has recalled its ambassador to Syria in protest at the attack, although it has not directly accused Damascus of responsibility.

The announcement from Iran and Syria came as Hariri was buried in the Lebanese capital Beirut.

A smart move for both of them considering the things the Bush Administration has been saying in the last two days since Hariri was assassinated in Lebanon.

--PunkDavid

And a smart move in terms of consolidating resources to carry out a unified, coordinated war of state-sponsored terrorism . . .

These two countries are backing themselves into a corner. Syria just majorly pissed off a huge faction of the Arab world with the assassination of Lebanon's ex-PM and its continued occupation of Lebanon. In Iran, the more progressive and youthful the populace, the more pressure from within to radically change the ideological make-up of the people and government. The latter will take time. The former may be dealt with sooner rather than later.

I'm just saying, if I was Syria, I'd be shitting right now about being attacked by the US. I'm a bit skeptical of the Syrian connection to the Hariri assassination. I'm not saying it wasn't them, it just seems to be inviting retalitation from the US at a time when Syria has been trying its best to be covertly subversive to the Americans in Iraq. This move was as overt as they come, and kind of illogical.

So the Syrians know damn well that we can't fight both Syria and Iran at the same time right now. In fact, I don't think we could fight Iran even without Syria. This alliance keeps the Americans in Iraq and out of Syria for the time being.

--PunkDavid

maybe im an idiot, but do you think us putting ourselves on several fronts would give the gov't americans' sympathies and an excuse to drop some big bombs and not use troops?

Maybe I'm an idiot, but I don't think I understand your question.

--PunkDavid

no maybe about it

hes saying, if the troops are spread thin, then the american people might feel sympathy for the troops and want it ended as quickly as possible

So, we're suggesting that if the Americans decide to attack Syria (because Syria sure as shit isn't going to attack Iraq), and Iran jumps onto the pile, then the American people will have increased sympathy for the troops who are now spread too thin and will be more willing to allow the administration to carpet bomb Iran and Syria? Or are we talking about nukes?

I don't think this logic follows. However, logic has never been the strongest suit of the American public, so who knows.

--PunkDavid

basically, acceptance of some pretty inhumane shit

Dresden, Feb 1945.


Kim Phuc, in Trang Bang, Vietnam, June 8, 1972

I'd like to think that people still remember things.