While Haley doesn’t explicitly say this [We must go to war in order to have peace], shes says enough that the implication is clear; it is not possible to have a peaceful transition of power in Syria but nonetheless, there must be a transition of power. This leaves one option: an unpeaceful transfer of power in Syria. This implicates possible armed conflict with Iran (and their surrogates like Hezbollah, much more effective than ISIS) and Russia. One doesn’t go to war in order to secure peace. These ideas are in direct opposition. [The Intellectualist]
The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Sunday declared that the administration does not see peace and stability in Syria with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad still in power.
On Sunday’s “Meet The Press,” Haley told host Chuck Todd, “In no way do we look at peace happening in that area with Iranian influence. In no way do we see peace in that area with Russia covering up for Assad. In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad as the head of the Syrian government.”
“We have to make sure that we’re pushing that process,” she continued. “The political solution has to come together for the good of the people of Syria.”
Haley noted that the United States’ first priority is still to defeat ISIS, but that there can be “multiple priorities.”
“So you know, of course, it’s to defeat ISIS,” she said. “I mean, we’ve got to do that for peace and stability in the area. It’s also to get out the Iranian influence, which we think is causing so much friction and worse issues in the area. And then we’ve got to go and make sure that we actually see a leader that will protect his people. And clearly, Assad is not that person.”