Syria Russia RT alternative media pepe escobar Islamization Iran hizbollah

There is “news” circulating that Russia's Putin is “softening” his stance on direct US-led military strikes against Syria. I do not think that Putin is being “softer”, as proof is what he, and far more importantly the Chinese, have been asking for all along.

The Syrian people would do well to remember, however, that the Russians also backed NATO's overthrow of the secular nationalist Shah of Iran, what Islamists and the media market as the “Iranian Revolution”, so such cooperation with Washington would not be unprecedented.

In the case of Syria, one only has to be mindful of Russian media's (RT for instance) references to the Syrian government as “Assad's regime” and the Islamists as "rebels", obeying and in line with the same directive followed by the western “free media”, or the very presentation of a pro-Islamist thug such as Pepe Escobar (a Huffington Post and al-Jazeera contributor no less) as an “opponent” of NATO's Islamization policy, to realize where they truly stand.

I believe that the Russians, like the British, are apprehensive about the complications that such an undertaking in Syria may involve. They are no more “pro-Assad” than they are against Islamization. Like the privileged classes of the western countries, they are advanced enough to deter any threats directed against themselves. The real victims of the Islamist proxy armies are the “Third World” sovereign states and their people who, in defending their sovereignty against "human rights activists", are denounced by the media as dictatorships and violators of human rights.

A final thought on the Islamic Republic's position on Syria. We may want to recall the “beacon of Islamic democracy's” similar position prior to the invasion and Islamization of Iraq. The Islamic Republic was against it, so we were told, yet became one of the main beneficiaries of the invasion. I see no reason to predict a different outcome here.