September 8, 2013 - The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obamaâ€™s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria
is that itâ€™s not about Syria at all. Itâ€™s about Iranâ€”and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By â€śthe start,â€ť 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 Iranâ€™s. Since then, taking Iran
down a peg has been the driving force behind Obamaâ€™s 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: â€śAttacking Syria Is the Best Way to Deal with Iran.â€ť 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 Tehranâ€™s interests, be it to punish the Assad regime for chemical weapons
use or to show support for the Syrian opposition in changing Assadâ€™s calculus and forcing him to â€śstep asideâ€ť 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 â€śbandwidthâ€ť 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 â€śresistance axis.â€ť
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, sinceâ€”by slamming Syria, never mind toppling Assadâ€”Washington is likely to undermine doves and bolster hawks in Tehran and undermine the chances for successful negotiations with Iranâ€™s new president, Hassan Rouhani, whoâ€™ll be speaking at the UN General Assembly later this month.
In fact, both Russia and Iran
have signaled recently, in the wake of Syriaâ€™s 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 Syriaâ€™s chemical warfare, and that makes it far more likely that the much-postponed US-Russia â€śGeneva IIâ€ť peace conference on Syria might work. The hawkish Washington Post today notes Rouhaniâ€™s 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: â€śWe 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.â€ť
Meanwhile, Russiaâ€™s 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:
â€śIf 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 shouldnâ€™t be based on some rumors and information obtained by intelligence agencies through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that.â€ť
Then, according to the Washington Post, Putin declared that he might join a UN-sponsored coalition on Syria:
He said he â€śdoesnâ€™t excludeâ€ť backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations
if there is objective evidence proving that Assadâ€™s 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 Iranâ€”the latter of whom the Obama administration still refuses to invite to Geneva II if and when it occursâ€”wonâ€™t 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 itâ€™s 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 Netanyahuâ€™s perspective, Israel isnâ€™t unduly threatened by Assad. Syria constitutes a dangerous, but ultimately manageable, threat.
Netanyahu believes, of course, that Iran, Syriaâ€™s primary sponsor, poses an existential threat to his country, and so would like the Iranians to understand very clearly that Obamaâ€™s 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: â€śIf the Iranians do not fear Obama, then the Israelis will lose confidence in Obama.â€ť
In his round-robin television appearances on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerryâ€”now the administrationâ€™s ĂĽber-hawkâ€”repeatedly said that bombing Syria would send a message to Iran. As he told Fox News on Sunday:
â€śThe 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.â€ť
Take Action: Demand Your Reps Vote No on Military Intervention in Syria