President Barack Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obamas much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that its not about Syria at all. Its about Iranand Israel. And it has been from the start.
By the start, I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Irans. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obamas Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
Item for consideration: a new column by the Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the chief think tank of the Israel lobby. Andrew Tabler headlines his piece: Attacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran. In it, he says:
At first glance, the festering Syria crisis seems bad news for diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. In actuality, however, achieving U.S. objectives in the Syria crisis is an opportunity to pressure Iran into making hard choices not only in Syria, but regarding its nuclear program as well. More U.S. involvement to achieve its objectives in Syria will inevitably run counter to Tehrans interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assads calculus and forcing him to step aside at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
Many in U.S. policymaking circles have viewed containing swelling Iranian influence in Syria and preventing Iran from going nuclear as two distinct policy discussions, as the Obama Administration only has so much bandwidth to deal with Middle East threats. But the recent deepening of cooperation between Tehran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, combined with their public acknowledgement of these activities, indicates that they themselves see these activities as furthering the efficacy of the resistance axis.
Like every alliance, its members will only make hard policy choices if the costs of its current policies far outweigh the benefits. U.S. strikes on the Assad regime, if properly calibrated as part of an overall plan to degrade the regime, would force Tehran to become more involved in Syria in order to rescue its stalwart ally. This would be costly for Iran financially, militarily and politically. Those costs would make the Iranian regime and its people reassess aspirations to go nuclear.
Needless to say, such a strategy is bound to be counterproductive, sinceby slamming Syria, never mind toppling AssadWashington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Irans new president, Hassan Rouhani, wholl be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.
In fact, both Russia and Iran have signaled recently, in the wake of Syrias obvious deployment and use of sarin gas and other deadly weapons that they might be getting ready to join the rest of the world in condemning Syrias chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia Geneva II peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhanis new administration in Tehran is softening its tone on Syria, and it reports that the new Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has acknowledged the Syria has erred, saying: We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused.
Meanwhile, Russias President Vladimir Putin, while issuing scathing denunciations of the coming U.S. attack on Syria, has dropped broad hints that he might be willing to join with other nations if and when the United Nations weapons team concludes that Assad used nerve gas, suggesting that Russia might not block a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. In his much-reported interview with the Associated Press, Putin insisted on waiting for the UN report:
If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council. And it ought to be convincing. It shouldnt be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.
Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:
He said he doesnt exclude backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assads regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.
But a change in tone on the part of Russia and Iranthe latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occurswont mean a thing if the object of war with Syria is to send a message to Iran. As Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for Bloomberg, says, for Israel its all about Iran:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahus perspective, Israel isnt unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.
Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syrias primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obamas red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple: If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.
In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerrynow the administrations über-hawkrepeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:
The fact is that if we act and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176040/obamas-syria-war-really-about-iran-and-israel#axzz2eFYXl9MD
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obamas much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that its not about Syria at all. Its about Iranand Israel. And it has been from the start.
By the start, I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Irans. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obamas Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.
Item for consideration: a new column by the Syria analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the chief think tank of the Israel lobby. Andrew Tabler headlines his piece: Attacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran. In it, he says:
At first glance, the festering Syria crisis seems bad news for diplomatic efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear capabilities. In actuality, however, achieving U.S. objectives in the Syria crisis is an opportunity to pressure Iran into making hard choices not only in Syria, but regarding its nuclear program as well. More U.S. involvement to achieve its objectives in Syria will inevitably run counter to Tehrans interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assads calculus and forcing him to step aside at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
Many in U.S. policymaking circles have viewed containing swelling Iranian influence in Syria and preventing Iran from going nuclear as two distinct policy discussions, as the Obama Administration only has so much bandwidth to deal with Middle East threats. But the recent deepening of cooperation between Tehran, Hezbollah and the Assad regime, combined with their public acknowledgement of these activities, indicates that they themselves see these activities as furthering the efficacy of the resistance axis.
Like every alliance, its members will only make hard policy choices if the costs of its current policies far outweigh the benefits. U.S. strikes on the Assad regime, if properly calibrated as part of an overall plan to degrade the regime, would force Tehran to become more involved in Syria in order to rescue its stalwart ally. This would be costly for Iran financially, militarily and politically. Those costs would make the Iranian regime and its people reassess aspirations to go nuclear.
Needless to say, such a strategy is bound to be counterproductive, sinceby slamming Syria, never mind toppling AssadWashington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Irans new president, Hassan Rouhani, wholl be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.
In fact, both Russia and Iran have signaled recently, in the wake of Syrias obvious deployment and use of sarin gas and other deadly weapons that they might be getting ready to join the rest of the world in condemning Syrias chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia Geneva II peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhanis new administration in Tehran is softening its tone on Syria, and it reports that the new Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, has acknowledged the Syria has erred, saying: We believe that the government in Syria has made grave mistakes that have, unfortunately, paved the way for the situation in the country to be abused.
Meanwhile, Russias President Vladimir Putin, while issuing scathing denunciations of the coming U.S. attack on Syria, has dropped broad hints that he might be willing to join with other nations if and when the United Nations weapons team concludes that Assad used nerve gas, suggesting that Russia might not block a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. In his much-reported interview with the Associated Press, Putin insisted on waiting for the UN report:
If there is evidence that chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council. And it ought to be convincing. It shouldnt be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.
Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:
He said he doesnt exclude backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assads regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.
But a change in tone on the part of Russia and Iranthe latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occurswont mean a thing if the object of war with Syria is to send a message to Iran. As Jeffrey Goldberg, writing for Bloomberg, says, for Israel its all about Iran:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel would prefer that Obama enforce his red line on chemical weapons use, because he would like to see proof that Obama believes in the red lines he draws. From Netanyahus perspective, Israel isnt unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.
Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syrias primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obamas red lines are, in fact, very red. As Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told me last night, the formula is simple: If the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.
In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerrynow the administrations über-hawkrepeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:
The fact is that if we act and if we act in concert, then Iran will know that this nation is capable of speaking with one voice on something like this, and that has serious, profound implications, I think, with respect to the potential of a confrontation over their nuclear program. That is one of the things that is at stake here.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176040/obamas-syria-war-really-about-iran-and-israel#axzz2eFYXl9MD
