A Comfortable War
Around a week ago, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated the possibility of an operation in Syria among other things. This was even before the scandal that broke out after Brig.-Gen. Itai Baron exposed that Israel holds solid information that a chemical weapon, sarin gas, has been used in Syria. Dempsey was asked if he was certain that U.S. forces could secure the chemical weapon supply in Syria. To this he answered, “Not as I sit here today simply because they have been moving it and the number of sites is quite numerous.”
To Americans, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no real point in working within the moral and strategic “red line” set by Obama regarding the use of chemical weapons in the war in Syria. It would be unethical to watch the atrocities from afar, especially when you have the means to take action. However, some U.S. commentators are correct in saying the events in Syria have little effect on the U.S.' safety.
The collapse of Syria is certainly presenting a comfortable situation to the U.S. and admittedly, also to Israel. Talks of giving full support to the rebel organizations lack any actual substance. There is no power in Syria that can guarantee the country will not be yet another failure; not to mention that the majority of the groups opposing Assad have become terrorist organizations, the most dominant of which being Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida’s local branch.
This is the time to remind ourselves of the developing attitude toward Assad’s regime. Much emotion has been invested in these rebels. When they appeared on stage just over two years ago, they invoked admiration. They protested in the streets with empty hands before a terrorist regime equipped with everything a police state has, especially a lack of inhibitions. They were tens, hundreds and then thousands who were shot, until they began setting up a fighting framework. Then came the first realizations that maybe there are no “good guys” and “bad guys” in the Syrian story. Today, as it is obvious that the alternative to the Assad regime is Islamist chaos with Iranian infiltration on one hand and the foundations of al-Qaida on the other, it is difficult to decide which is preferable.
The theory that the fall of Assad’s Syria would be a fatal blow to Iran and Hezbollah is too schematic and has lost its validity in the past year. On the contrary, it seems that if Assad and his forces were to disappear, a complete “Lebanonization” would happen to the entire Syrian territory, in which a local Hezbollah organization would blossom, and the Iranians would thrive. This makes the current situation— as long as it lasts — a comfortable one for both the U.S. and Israel.
The not-so-comfortable truth is that Israel and the U.S., democratic countries with superior ideals, are looking for something to lighten their consciences on the subject of the "red line" that was crossed in regards to weapons of mass destruction. Israel had decided that its "red line" would be transporting such weapons out of Syria, to Hezbolla, for example. If the secret services are tracking information of the sort that was exposed by Baron, there is the option of making targeted attacks rather than taking wide, general actions as the U.S. has committed to do and, as it now appears it is incapable of doing, according to Dempsey.
There is only one distinct motive to a firm response to the use of chemical weapons: the effect that the action in Syria will have on Iran. In this regard, there is now a golden opportunity to pick a specific target in Syria and destroy it. But there is the problem of two overly polite and courteous gunmen. One is willing and able to suddenly fire a bullet, but the bad guy has not exactly broken the rules; the other, who has been taunted, hesitates for too long and is finding every excuse in the world not to pull the trigger. The problem lies before Israel. If no Israeli or U.S. action commences in Syria, it will be impossible to continue convincing the world that the military option in Iran is still on the table.
To Americans, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no real point in working within the moral and strategic “red line” set by Obama regarding the use of chemical weapons in the war in Syria. It would be unethical to watch the atrocities from afar, especially when you have the means to take action. However, some U.S. commentators are correct in saying the events in Syria have little effect on the U.S.' safety.
The collapse of Syria is certainly presenting a comfortable situation to the U.S. and admittedly, also to Israel. Talks of giving full support to the rebel organizations lack any actual substance. There is no power in Syria that can guarantee the country will not be yet another failure; not to mention that the majority of the groups opposing Assad have become terrorist organizations, the most dominant of which being Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaida’s local branch.
This is the time to remind ourselves of the developing attitude toward Assad’s regime. Much emotion has been invested in these rebels. When they appeared on stage just over two years ago, they invoked admiration. They protested in the streets with empty hands before a terrorist regime equipped with everything a police state has, especially a lack of inhibitions. They were tens, hundreds and then thousands who were shot, until they began setting up a fighting framework. Then came the first realizations that maybe there are no “good guys” and “bad guys” in the Syrian story. Today, as it is obvious that the alternative to the Assad regime is Islamist chaos with Iranian infiltration on one hand and the foundations of al-Qaida on the other, it is difficult to decide which is preferable.
The theory that the fall of Assad’s Syria would be a fatal blow to Iran and Hezbollah is too schematic and has lost its validity in the past year. On the contrary, it seems that if Assad and his forces were to disappear, a complete “Lebanonization” would happen to the entire Syrian territory, in which a local Hezbollah organization would blossom, and the Iranians would thrive. This makes the current situation— as long as it lasts — a comfortable one for both the U.S. and Israel.
The not-so-comfortable truth is that Israel and the U.S., democratic countries with superior ideals, are looking for something to lighten their consciences on the subject of the "red line" that was crossed in regards to weapons of mass destruction. Israel had decided that its "red line" would be transporting such weapons out of Syria, to Hezbolla, for example. If the secret services are tracking information of the sort that was exposed by Baron, there is the option of making targeted attacks rather than taking wide, general actions as the U.S. has committed to do and, as it now appears it is incapable of doing, according to Dempsey.
There is only one distinct motive to a firm response to the use of chemical weapons: the effect that the action in Syria will have on Iran. In this regard, there is now a golden opportunity to pick a specific target in Syria and destroy it. But there is the problem of two overly polite and courteous gunmen. One is willing and able to suddenly fire a bullet, but the bad guy has not exactly broken the rules; the other, who has been taunted, hesitates for too long and is finding every excuse in the world not to pull the trigger. The problem lies before Israel. If no Israeli or U.S. action commences in Syria, it will be impossible to continue convincing the world that the military option in Iran is still on the table.
Previous article![]( "Shale Gas in the US Prompts False Hopes")