Over the past week, President Barack Obama and his senior advisers have told us that the US is poised to go to war against Syria. In the next few days, the US intends to use its airpower and guided missiles to attack Syria in response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons in the outskirts of Damascus last week.
The questions that ought to have been answered before any statements were made by the likes of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel have barely been raised in the public arena. The most important of those questions are: What US interests are at stake in Syria? How should the US go about advancing them? What does Syria’s use of chemical weapons means for the US’s position in the region? How would the planned US military action in Syria impact US deterrent strength, national interests and credibility regionally and worldwide? Syria is not an easy case. Thirty months into the war there, it is clear that the good guys, such as they are, are not in a position to win.
Syria is controlled by Iran and its war is being directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and by Hezbollah. And arrayed against them are rebel forces dominated by al-Qaida.
As US Sen. Ted Cruz explained this week, “Of nine rebel groups [fighting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad], seven of them may well have some significant ties to al-Qaida.”
With no good horse to bet on, the US and its allies have three core interests relating to the war. First, they have an interest in preventing Syria’s chemical, biological and ballistic missile arsenals from being used against them either directly by the regime, through its terror proxies or by a successor regime.
Second, the US and its allies have an interest in containing the war as much as possible to Syria itself.
Finally, the US and its allies share an interest in preventing Iran, Moscow or al-Qaida from winning the war or making any strategic gains from their involvement in the war.
For the past two-and-a-half years, Israel has been doing an exemplary job of securing the first interest. According to media reports, the IDF has conducted numerous strikes inside Syria to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry, including missiles from Syria to Hezbollah.
Rather than assist Israel in its efforts that are also vital to US strategic interests, the US has been endangering these Israeli operations. US officials have repeatedly leaked details of Israel’s operations to the media. These leaks have provoked several senior Israeli officials to express acute concern that in providing the media with information regarding these Israeli strikes, the Obama administration is behaving as if it is interested in provoking a war between Israel and Syria. The concerns are rooted in a profound distrust of US intentions, unprecedented in the 50-year history of US-Israeli strategic relations.
The second US interest threatened by the war in Syria is the prospect that the war will not be contained in Syria. Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan specifically are threatened by the carnage. To date, this threat has been checked in Jordan and Lebanon. In Jordan, US forces along the border have doubtlessly had a deterrent impact in preventing the infiltration of the kingdom by Syrian forces.
In Lebanon, given the huge potential for spillover, the consequences of the war in Syria have been much smaller than could have been reasonably expected. Hezbollah has taken a significant political hit for its involvement in the war in Syria. On the ground, the spillover violence has mainly involved Sunni and Shi’ite jihadists targeting one another.
Iraq is the main regional victim of the war in Syria. The war there reignited the war between Sunnis and Shi’ites in Iraq. Violence has reached levels unseen since the US force surge in 2007. The renewed internecine warfare in Iraq redounds directly to President Barack Obama’s decision not to leave a residual US force in the country. In the absence US forces, there is no actor on the ground capable of strengthening the Iraqi government’s ability to withstand Iranian penetration or the resurgence of al-Qaida.
The third interest of the US and its allies that is threatened by the war in Syria is to prevent Iran, Russia or al-Qaida from securing a victory or a tangible benefit from their involvement in the war.
It is important to note that despite the moral depravity of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, none of America’s vital interests is impacted by their use within Syria. Obama’s pledge last year to view the use of chemical weapons as a tripwire that would automatically cause the US to intervene militarily in the war in Syria was made without relation to any specific US interest.
But once Obama made his pledge, other US interests became inextricably linked to US retaliation for such a strike. The interests now on the line are America’s deterrent power and strategic credibility. If Obama responds in a credible way to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, those interests will be advanced. If he does not, US deterrent power will become a laughing stock and US credibility will be destroyed.
Unfortunately, the US doesn’t have many options for responding to Assad’s use of chemical weapons. If it targets the regime in a serious way, Assad could fall, and al-Qaida would then win the war. Conversely, if the US strike is sufficient to cause strategic harm to the regime’s survivability, Iran could order the Syrians or Hezbollah or Hamas, or all of them, to attack Israel. Such an attack would raise the prospect of regional war significantly.
A reasonable response would be for the US to target Syria’s ballistic missile sites. And that could happen. Although the US doesn’t have to get involved in order to produce such an outcome. Israel could destroy Syria’s ballistic missiles without any US involvement while minimizing the risk of a regional conflagration.
There are regime centers and military command and control bases and other strategic sites that it might make sense for the US to target.
Unfortunately, the number of regime and military targets the US has available for targeting has been significantly reduced in recent days. Administration leaks of the US target bank gave the Syrians ample time to move their personnel and equipment.
This brings us to the purpose the Obama administration has assigned to a potential retaliatory strike against the Syrian regime following its use of chemical weapons.
Obama told PBS on Wednesday that US strikes on Syria would be “a shot across the bow.”
But as Charles Krauthammer noted, such a warning is worthless. In the same interview Obama also promised that the attack would be a nonrecurring event. When there are no consequences to ignoring a warning, then the warning will be ignored.
This is a very big problem. Obama’s obvious reluctance to follow through on his pledge to retaliate if Syria used chemical weapons may stem from a belated recognition that he has tethered the US’s strategic credibility to the quality of its response to an action that in itself has little significance to US interests in Syria.
And this brings us to the third vital US interest threatened by the war in Syria – preventing Iran, al-Qaida or Russia from scoring a victory.
Whereas the war going on in Syria pits jihadists against jihadists, the war that concerns the US and its allies is the war the jihadists wage against everyone else. And Iran is the epicenter of that war.
Like US deterrent power and strategic credibility, the US’s interest in preventing Iran from scoring a victory in Damascus is harmed by the obvious unseriousness of the “signal” Obama said he wishes to send Assad through US air strikes.
Speaking on Sunday of the chemical strike in Syria, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned, “Syria has become Iran’s testing ground…. Iran is watching and it wants to see what would be the reaction on the use of chemical weapons.”
The tepid, symbolic response that the US is poised to adopt in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons represents a clear signal to Iran. Both the planned strikes and the growing possibility that the US will scrap even a symbolic military strike in Syria tell Iran it has nothing to fear from Obama.
Iran achieved a strategic achievement by exposing the US as a paper tiger in Syria. With this accomplishment in hand, the Iranians will feel free to call Obama’s bluff on their nuclear weapons project. Obama’s “shot across the bow” response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in a mass casualty attack signaled the Iranians that the US will not stop them from developing and deploying a nuclear arsenal.
Policy-makers and commentators who have insisted that we can trust Obama to keep his pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons have based their view on an argument that now lies in tatters. They insisted that by pledging to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Obama staked his reputation on acting competently to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. To avoid losing face, they said, Obama will keep his pledge.
Obama’s behavior on Syria has rendered this position indefensible. Obama is perfectly content with shooting a couple of pot shots at empty government installations. As far as he is concerned, the conduct of air strikes in Syria is not about Syria, or Iran. They are not the target audience of the strikes. The target audience for US air strikes in Syria is the disengaged, uninformed American public.
Obama believes he can prove his moral and strategic bonafides to the public by declaring his outrage at Syrian barbarism and then launching a few cruise missiles from an aircraft carrier. The computer graphics on the television news will complete the task for him.
The New York Times claimed on Thursday that the administration’s case for striking Syria would not be the “political theater” that characterized the Bush administration’s case for waging war in Iraq. But at least the Bush administration’s political theater ended with the invasion. In Obama’s case, the case for war and the war itself are all political theater.
While for a few days the bread and circuses of the planned strategically useless raid will increase newspaper circulation and raise viewer ratings of network news, it will cause grievous harm to US national interests. As far as US enemies are concerned, the US is an empty suit.
And as far as America’s allies are concerned, the only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power is to operate without the knowledge of the United States.
@ einkerem:
Any support the US sends the rebel groups in Syria, massive or tricked-up ‘pokazuha’ will be matched by what Assad gets — and shall continue to get — from Russia and Iran. A zero-sum game, I think this is called.
Syria under Alawite control, or at least western Syria under Alawite control is precisely what Russia and Iran need in order for either of them to have a power presence in the Eastern Mediterranean area. I also assume that Russia will be the new suppliers of all kinds of military hardware that they formlery had lavished on them by the United States. And that implies that the Russian Navy will have basing rights at or near Alexandria and probably at one of Egypt’s Red Sea ports.
All of this is exactly what happens when the leader of what used to be the world’s supreme power shows his country to have devolved to little more than a paper tiger.
On the other side of the world, the new order of things will mean even less cooperation by China and Russia in dealing with North Korea and the nuclear threat posed by that particular long-term family dictatorship.
It’s all about power. I heard somewhere that one day in the Kremlin in the early 1920s, Stalin was sitting talking with “Iron Felix” Dzerzhinsky, and said:
“Feliks, there’s one thing about power that can’t be denied. It’s the only thing in the world that can’t be faked. You either have power, or you don’t.”
I smile about that every time I think of it, because it’s so damned clearcut and realistic.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Caroline is right on target. If there will be a US attack, expect the targets to be empty warehouses and then let the lefty press lie to all the world that they hit
all the chemical storehouses.
Obama would not like anything more than to bring down Assad, but the only way he can make that happen is through the rebels getting massive US support, which they are.
I think there will be no Obama-ordered air strikes against either Syria or Iran. Obama has neither international nor internal domestic backing for any such attack. Obama has now agreed to seek US Congressional approval for an attack on Syria. With each passing day, that becomes less likely, because Americans no longer support such adventures in the Middle East, and Congress will not risk going against them as politics heat up for next year’s Congressional elections.
The same logic applies to a now-dim possibility of any Western air attack against Iran’s growing nuclear weapons-building capabilities.
Assad lately has been winning his war against the various Arab coalition forces, al-Qaeda or otherwise. The Russians and Iranians will give him yet additional aid, and he certainly does not need chemical or biological weapons to take back control at least over Western Syria, where his Alawite backers are the demographic majority. Undoubtedly, he will follow what is certain to be Russia’s advice to put all his chemical and biological weapons under total lockup, in places where no US air strike could get to them.
But the Syrian civil war will continue, and the Syrian state will probably fragment into 3-4 local jurisdictions based on ethnicity (Kurds vs Arabs) and/or religious sectarianism (Sun’a vs Shi’a).
If Israel intends to have a future in the midst of all this bloody chaos, they should work themselves loose from dependence on the USA, which truly has become an international paper tiger, and start annexing minimally Area C and maximally Area B of Shomron and Yehuda, and negotiate directly with the traditional hamulas of the seven major Arab cities in the territories to establish them as autonomous entities. That, plus rapidly building up the Jewish population of the territories to make all this a permanent reality.
What to do about Iran? Most of you must know by now that if Israel alone must be the force that destroys the Iranian nuclear stockpiles. You either do that with conventional weapons now, or dither and be compelled to use your own nuclear weapons against theirs in some future instant holocaust.
In any case, discontinue as soon as possible the curious Jewish disease of imagining the Nazis of any epoch would really transport them eastward to resettle them.
That, and trust nobody at all. They always lie to you, pleasantly or otherwise, and they always shall.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYCdKG8BiYE&feature=player_detailpage
yamit82 Said:
yamit82 Said:
Old Jew telling jokes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Darlin
@ yamit82:
bull winkled
Get some rest your tookie, Swedish for crazy or drunk
yamit82 Said:
That me only I have shorter hair and green eyes.Sugar all that bee makes one dew
Tex says worth every agonizing hot minute!
honeybee Said:
Is not!!!
honeybee Said:
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSRwz3zR8xZzluSqk9RrjK3iDQ_N9z-KaSW4okFWyYNj4HGHf_muw
I might rethink the sweaty bar positives
@ yamit82:
Tex is packing his parka now.
yamit82 Said:
Tex says,”Does the old bull dribble”
yamit82 Said:
I say,” thats a lot of bull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sweetie
honeybee Said:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lH5RooM4JHs/T06w_AFhVMI/AAAAAAAAAaE/l5groA8WT90/s1600/Russian-Women-with-Ak-47s.jpg 😛
honeybee Said:
What about the eagerness and vitality of a young Bull with the experience of an old Bull?
Or
An old bull who has all the attributes of a young Bull plus…?
@ yamit82:
I sent you enough one liners and jokes for a whole 1/2 hour of “Latma”, and you ignore them!!!!!!!!! What I am I anyhow a week old Matozah Ball?????????
bernard ross Said:
a Gal Hadash poll published in Israel Hayom found that 66.6 percent of respondents would be in favor of American and European military intervention in Syria.
Paradoxical disconnect?
Asked whether they were concerned that American intervention in Syria would lead to Israeli intervention in the war, 66.8% said yes, 28.7 said no and 4.5% did not know.
The government of Israel will not ask for popular approval to attack Syrian chemical weapons and delivery platforms along with command and control systems if they are positioned or transferred as to present a real or near immediate threat to Israel.
That Israelis are against wars and sending our sons to fight but they believe the threat is not just ours, and others have as much skin in this games as we do if not more geopolitically. At the same time those polled and voted against Israeli participation were for American and EU attacking and same % of those Israelis who were against Israeli involvement:
So we want others to take care of Syria but believe we will be drawn in if they THE AMERICANS AND EU,attack Syria? That means we don’t want it all on our shoulders.
When Israel attacked the Syrian reactor they didn’t take a poll.
When Israel attacked Russian missiles being transferred to Hezbollah we didn’t take a poll.
When Israel took out a poison gas factory in Sudan we didn’t take a poll. After the actions were publicized the public supported the actions because they were successful, we did not lose anyone and there was no immediate retaliation.
Our special operations units daily operate outside our borders and you never hear about their missions most I assume successful otherwise we would have been aware of failures. No polls are taken. Most Israelis are also against attacking Iran for what it’s worth. There would be something not normal about Israelis if there was popular support for military actions even when there is justification.
bernard ross Said:
@ yamit82:
This O’Texas Cowgirl preferes an experience old bull to a fumbling young bull any o’day or NIGHT!!!!!!!!!! Darlin
yamit82 Said:
The gunfight at ” THE KOED CORRAL”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
yamit82 Said:
If Obama lived in Texas,he would want a barroom with AC
yamit82 Said:
So would I , if I had a good golf game and if my only responsibility was to make appointments as instructed, read speeches and follow instructions of advisors I was instructed to appoint.
PS Ike was aways playing golf
yamit82 Said:
latest israeli polls say it is so.
http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Polls-Israelis-want-US-Europe-to-attack-Syria-but-against-IDF-intervention-324787
yamit82 Said:
Agreed.
yamit82 Said:
yamit82 Said:
as you know, i wrote that before he delayed the strikes. You are monday morning quarterbacking. the logic hasnt changed, only the timing. IN fact the delay is evidence of my logic that the strike was not to prevent further chemical attacks. He originally said that it was a strategic necessity to act with speed to prevent further chemical attacks. Obviously it wasn’t. He wants more support before doing it, he has more electoral considerations than bush because his voters are anti war. furthermore, not being to prevent chemistry it is better to delay and put assad off guard. Assad has moved his resources and is in a bunker. US can update intelligence if they strike.
yamit82 Said:
Nah. Putin already said he will not go to war over this. why should he? If obama made a limited attack with poor evidence it would accomplish nothing and be a pr victory for Putin. Wars and diplomatic events are constantly changing and it makes no sense to jump to conclusions. A few weeks ago assad appeared ahead but assessments are in dispute now. Plus we are not aware of what actual desired outcomes are sought. Strategically a delay is a better idea than a limited strike on moved assets. will assad have to move them again will he come out of the bunker, etc. Plus he may be able to widen his appeal to congress to include iran if he is able to tie iran into the Chem attacks. I doubt the goals have changed, only the tactics. If their goals change then Israel must beware.
Patience young man, you know the story of the old bull and the young bull? 😛
bernard ross Said:
Not so. Most Israelis want the chemical weapons threat and missile/rocket capability degraded or if possible confiscated. Short of that we don’t really care that much about Syria. We know that in the end if the Americans don’t do it we will eventually be forced to do it ourselves.
The regional and global ramifications of an Israeli intervention in Syria is not the same as an American one. Either way America will be effected and drawn in as yet ways not all foreseen no matter what.
Obama made his speech then went to play golf. Great imagery of the Black Guy in the WH.
America? How the mighty have fallen!!!!
Remember Tyre whose fate will be Americas as well.
bernard ross Said:
What strikes?bernard ross Said:
What attacks?
I think Putin scared him off the attack.
honeybee Said:
There must be both Joy & Jubilation in Tehran and Damascus. There is not a single country not laughing at Obama and America. Obama gave Paper Tiger a new meaning. The tiger must be very old with arthritis and no teeth. Must be tigers like the ones used in the circus.
BB stuck in a hard place. The Black Guy in the WH just pulled the excuse rug out from under BB which includes negotiations with the Pali Diaper Heads.
Looks like Obama does not have our or anyone’s back.
Proof that Israel is on our own and must act accordingly.
Iran just added another 1000 centrifuges.
No more delaying excuses blaming pressure from Obama.
Nobody on this planet is afraid of Obama except BB and Kerry who was hung out to dry by his Black Boss.
bernard ross Said:
Tex says he uses his for hammering nais [shoud I take that personally}. Your “boy” Obama just blinked.
honeybee Said:
I do not endorse all their articles, I browse, think and consider. disinformation, conspiracy theorists and anti semites also find their way there. However, sometimes they are right or part right. I like to get different points of view. One must use the noggin.
reply 22 in moderation
If pre planned the arabs are known to fabricated videos and reports about Israel which are total lies. I would assume that it is possible to pre make acted videos and release them in such a way on twitter, disguising urls’s, etc/ I am sure that today’s technology can accomplish this. Fabricated videos and reports about Israel from the same disinformation sources make me very cynical about all of this “especially the hundreds of thousands deaths” the jenins massacres killed 56 including IDF.
@ bernard ross:
As we say in Texas,I was just tickling you, you need to ease a little. Tex takes life eay,he says once you see a years worth of crops, work and income dystroyed in 30 min of hail and wind you learn to take life as it come.
I now subcribe to the “Daily Sheeple”, thanks.
honeybee Said:
not tense, focused. sorry, Ithought you were discussing the subject seriously, didnt realize you were joking.
CNN Caught Staging News Segments on Syria With Actors -Anderson Cooper and CNN have been caught staging fake news about Syria to justify military intervention. – See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/cnn-caught-staging-news-segments-on-syria-with-actors_082013#sthash.uEKbz49e.dpuf
@ bernard ross:
I’m sorry,I thought when I made a Smart-a– comment you would make one bact at me, I wanted you to laugh. I can read how tense you are.
Most Israelis want the US to attack syria. I hope Israel does not get the blame.
the bold letters indicate the reasons for the attack as a prlude to negotiations over syrias future. Capturing territory before the cease fire.
Al-Qaida ready to storm into Syria if U.S. strikes? Thousands of Islamic fighters mobilizing on border –
http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2013/08/30/al-qaida-ready-to-storm-into-syria-if-u-s-strikes-thousands-of-islamic-fighters-mobilizing-on-border/#sthash.jT62tLpF.dpuf
The strikes purported to be punishment for chemical attacks will be used to aid the jihadi mercenary troops, air fire as a cover and softening as prelude to the ground “troop” attacks.
This also explains why turkey wants a stronger attack on Assad by US. Obama is trying to avert criticism that was hurled at Bush, the difference is that Obamas electorate are anti war whereas Bush electorate were pro war: he is bucking his own voters and thereby cautious. therefore, a limited attack in the hope that it will be enough to aid the GCC mercenaries. Will he be right or wrong in his assessment?
@ bernard ross:
GOTCHA YANKEE BOY
bernard ross Said:
duhhhhhhhhhhhh
bernard ross Said:
thhhhhhhh[bronx cheer] No peach cobbler for you, Sweetie.
honeybee Said:
not to me
bernard ross Said:
Self evident
honeybee Said:
splain
honeybee Said:
Invented and existed and now fragmented, the same is true of syria. The wars with both testify to their existence. I dont see the point of your comment which is actually in reply to Glick’s quote that I cited.
bernard ross Said:
Good for the computor, I have a busy day. If you behave logically,the computor will.
It appears to me that obama and the GCC have a plan and that the plan includes Israel. Here is how it looks to me:
first, the weakening of Irans proxies of hamas, hezbullah, syria and Iraq. Hamas has been leashed, Hezbullah is spread thin and under attack in syria and lebanon. Syria is struggling with civil was and weakened, Iraq is under attack in preparation for phase 2
Phase 2 is the internal destabilization of Iran by using the current globally gathered, GCC funded sunni mercenaries(in syria, etc),using the newly available Kurds from Turkey in alliance with Iraqi, syrian and Iranian kurds internally, The sunni baluchis internally, the Iranian azeris who represent 25% of Iran and lastly the iranian “democratic” dissidents who will be twitter activated as in the arab springs. If the destabilization does not produce a negotiated solution like with ghadaffi’s nukes there may be a nato/US attack or a green light for israel.
Here is why I think israel is involved somehow:
The iranian proxies who would blowback on israel in an attack on Iran are being leashed, weakened and under attack by the GCC proxies.(hamas, hezbullah, syria) These targetss are mainly blowbacks to Israel as opposed to iranian blowback directly on the GCC. This means to me that the blowback mitigation by the US/GCC is in return for a couple of scenarios in which Israel cooperates.
One scenario is that Israel remains quiet and out of the picture by entering into the 9 mos Israel pal negotiations while the US/nato/arab coalition deals with Iran and the proxies. The coalition would need this as before in order to focus sunni arab jihadis to fight in Iraq, syria, lebanon, and iran. This may also be payment to wait for the 9 mos for the obam/gcc plan to unfold and take effect(a longer term plan to effect longer term change)
A second scenario is that the proxies are being weakened by the GCC/US for Israel to make the attack with a green light.
In return, Iran will be dealt with, the GCC will open relations with israel,the GCC will improve israels negotiating position by tweaking Abbas and using a jordan pal confed supervising the PA,,. It is possible that it has all been arranged but Israel proceeds with caution to see whether the US/Nato/GCC plan works or fails. The destabilization of iran is not for israel but for the GCC who fears Iran more than they fear israel and perhaps more than Israel fears Iran. Iran would likely destabilize and invade GCC than Israel because it is easier and the benefits are higher with less risk. but wait, they have already been doing this by internally destabilizing the GCC monarchies.
bernard ross Said:
There is no Iraq,Iraq is the invention of 19th century French and Engish oil interest.
this is because it is a planned regional GCC sunni war aginst Iran and its proxies. Iraq is a key player in the scenario. I have been saying the the indication that it is all planned would be if those jihadis that went to syria turned on israel rather than hezbullah, lebanon, iraq and ultimatley iran.
@ Bear Klein:
The only things Obama reads are golf magazines!
Obama should hire Glick to obtain a foreign policy strategy for Syria. He would learn something if he read this article. Assuming he reads something other than leftist propaganda.