"This is roughly what I will tell my aunt: In our political system in the U.S., you have to have either very well-funded lobbyists or overwhelming mass support in order for your political agenda to succeed....I will tell my aunt that -- as far as Middle East policy goes, the most powerful U.S. lobbies have been the arms suppliers and the oil industry, and -- of course -- the pro-Israel lobby."Of course. Farah naturally forgets that there is in fact overwhelming mass support against the US getting involved in Syria but that doesn't fit the narrative so it is ignored. Ditto with his placement of the cart before the horse when it comes to the "pro-Israel lobby." Obama wanted to attack Syria and then got AIPAC to help him lobby Congress to give him permission. AIPAC wasn't involved until the plans to attack Syria were well under way.
After this he gripes about how the "pro-Israel lobby" helped create Israel and then get stronger after Israel won in 1967. Funny how that works. But let's skip over more complaining about Iran to when he tries to blame the aforementioned usual suspects for Syria's chemical weapons use:
"The first is how Washington provided significant material support to Saddam Hussein's regime in his war with Iran in the 1980s, despite the use by the Iraqi army of chemical weapons that killed thousands of Iranians. No red line was drawn there. We looked the other way because Saddam's army was viewed as the bulwark against Iran and the "protector" of our allies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikdoms. The second is the allegedIsraeli use of white phosphorous against the Palestinians during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008-9; no red line was drawn there either. In fact the U.S. itself used white phosphorous against the Iraqi city of Fallujah in 2004."Obviously, all of this is a deflection and a case of two wrongs not making a right. Would Farah say that it's morally right for the US to stand back and let Syrians die by chemicals just because they did so thirty years ago? Probably not, but that's the goal here. The goal here is simply to bash America and who cares if it doesn't actually make sense in context. It's all about Fatah feeling good about himself, not about solving any problems or saving any lives.
Also we all already know this, but white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon. All in all, I give this article a pretty big F for fail. It's what the Huffington Post wanted though, I'm sure.