Bocoran Email Hillary: Rezim Assad Harus Ditumbangkan untuk Mengamankan Israel
TS
kudo212
Bocoran Email Hillary: Rezim Assad Harus Ditumbangkan untuk Mengamankan Israel
Satu Islam, Washington – Situs pembocor rahasia, WikiLeaks, menyebutkan bakal calon Presiden Amerika Serikat unggulan dari Partai Demokrat yang juga mantan Menteri Luar Negeri, Hillary Clinton menyatakan bahwa peran AS dalam perang sipil di Suriah untuk mengamankan posisi Israel di kawasan.
Dokumen email Hillary nomor F-2014-20439, C05794498, yang diretas Wikileaks menyebutkan hubungan strategis antara Iran dan rezim al-Assad adalah ancaman nyata bagi keamanan Israel. Pemerintahan Obama perlu menyalakan perang sipil di Suriah sebagai cara terbaik untuk membantu Israel.
“Cara terbaik untuk membantu Israel dengan memainkan rakyat Suriah menggulingkan rezim Bashar Assad ,” kata Hillary dalam emailnya yang panjang. (Baca: Bagaimana Perang Suriah Jika Hillary Terpilih Jadi Presiden AS?)
Dengan menjatuhkan Suriah, AS dapat menenangkan kekhawatiran Israel mengenai program nuklir Teheran. Dia menyatakan, hanya menggunakan jalur diplomasi tidak akan mencegah Republik Islam Iran melakukan pengayaan uranium, hal yang selama ini dikhawatirkan Israel.
“Negosiasi untuk membatasi program nuklir Iran tidak akan memecahkan keamanan Israel. Hal itu tidak akan menghentikan Iran meningkatkan program senjata nuklir nya. Paling-paling, pembicaraan antara negara-negara besar di dunia dengan Iran yang dimulai di Istanbul April ini dan akan diteruskan di Baghdad pada Mei hanya menunda keputusan Israel yang kebelet melancarkan serangan terhadap Iran yang dapat memicu perang Timur Tengah, ” tulisnya.
Memag fokus uatamanya pada program nuklir Iran dan proyek monopoli nuklir Israel di Timur Tengah. Oleh karena itu, dengan tergulingnya Assad, maka Iran tidak lagi mampu mengancam Israel. Dengan demikian tugas Washington akan menjadi ringan dalam meredakan ketegangan.
“Program nuklir Iran dan perang sipil Suriah mungkin tampak tidak berhubungan. Tetapi, jika Iran dibarkan mengembangkan nuklirnya, hal itu memangcing Saudi dan Mesir untuk ikut pula mengembangkan senjata nuklir. Rencana monopoli Israel atas senjata nuklir di kawasan menjadi gagal.
Lebih jauh lagi, Teheran akan lebih gampang memanggil sekutunya di Suriah dan Hizbullah untuk menyerang Israel, mengetahui bahwa senjata nuklirnya akan berfungsi sebagai pencegah Israel membalas serangan itu.
Hillary melihat kebuntuan persoalan ini bisa diatasi dengan membuat Suriah membara. Hubungan strategis antara Iran dan rezim Bashar Assad di Suriah memungkinkan Iran untuk melemahkan keamanan Israel. Tentu Iran tidak secara langsung melakukan serangan ke Israel, yang dalam tiga puluh tahun permusuhan antara mereka tidak pernah terjadi, tetapi melalui proxynya di Lebanon dan Suriah, Iran bisa lakukan itu.
Dengan berakhirnya rezim Assad, maka bagi Israel berakhir pula aliansi berbahaya ini. Para petinggi Israel mengerti dengan baik mengapa menggulingkan Assad merupakan pilihan yang sangat urgen.
Tujuan akhir menjatuhkan Assad adalah untuk memudahkan Israel untuk menerima jalan keluar program nuklir Iran. Dengan tumbangnya Assad , Iran tidak lagi mampu mengancam Israel melalui proxy.
Hillary dalam email itu juga menyebutkan mengapa pemerintah Obama menggunakan pemberontak dan jihadis sebagai proxy untuk menumbangkan Assad? Sebabnya karena Liga Arab belum memutuskan untuk mengintervensi Suriah melalui serangan militer sebagaimana yang terjadi di Libya. (Baca: Hillary Akui ISIS Buatan Amerika dan Persenjatai Militan Suriah)
Berbeda dengan pasukan oposisi Libya, pemberontak Suriah tidak bersatu dan tidak memegang wilayah. Washington menyadari mendepak Assad lebih sulit dibanding dengan mendepak Qaddafi. Padahal keberhasilan di Suriah akan mengubah peta Timur Tengah.
Tidak seperti di Libya, suksesnya intervensi di Suriah membutuhkan kepemimpinan diplomatik dan militer yang cukup besar dari Amerika Serikat. Washington harus memastikan kesediaan sekutu regionalnya seperti Turki, Arab Saudi, dan Qatar untuk mengatur rencana dengan mempersenjatai pasukan pemberontak dan jihadis di Suriah.
Dengan berdatangannya gelombang besar jihadis ke Suriah, dengan sendirinya menyebabkan pembelotan dalam jumlah besar di tubuh militer Suriah. Kemudian, langkah yang diambil dengan menggunakan wilayah di Turki dan Jordan sebagi tempat bagi pejabat Pentagon dan diplomat yang berkepentingan menggulingkan Assad mengkonsolidasikannya dengan jihadis.
“Ini akan memakan waktu yang lama dengan atau tanpa keterlibatan AS,” tulis Hillary. (Baca: Khamenei: Hillary Clinton Akui ISIS Buatan AS)
Langkah kedua adalah meminta dukungan internasional, bila perlu minta restu Dewan Keamanan PBB untuk menggelar operasi udara melalui pasukan koalisi mulinasional. Hal itu digunakan untuk mencegah Rusia jika negara itu menjadi batu sandungan, apalagi jika Moskow sampai membantu Assad.
Namun semua rencana Hillary kemudian berantakan karena Assad secara tiba-tiba meminta Rusia membasmi jihadis dengan mengirim jet tempur dan kapal perangnya ke Suriah pada September 2015. Rezim Assad masih berdiri kokoh hingga kini.
Spoiler for rilis asli wikileaks:
Hillary Clinton Email Archive
NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC
From:
To:
Date: 2001-01-01 03:00
Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOC
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
RELEASE IN FULL
The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of
Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.
Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will
they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability
to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in
Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few
months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.
Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli
leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader
launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of
both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is
losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that
nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go
nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not
respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier
to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons
would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in
Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack,
which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its
proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The
end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well
why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week,
Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to
the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the
Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic
Jihad in Gaza."
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease
Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States
might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that
military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance
with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli
leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With
Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the
United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an
unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with
Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is
the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at
risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015
The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in
Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition
forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not
called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed.
Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from
likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for
the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle
East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the
region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle
East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region.
Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and
military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its
willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train
and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause
substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly
Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take
time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement.
The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will
never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council.
Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example
shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which
don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain.
Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes.
Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and
airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm
that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to
the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And
the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence
in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an
enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab
world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action
on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian
sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and
missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from
murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of
civil war).
With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their
freedom. America can and should help them — and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the
risk of a wider war.