Bombing Into Unintended Consequences in Syria

Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4145/guest-column-bombing-into-unintended-consequences

In the Netherlands these days, politicians discuss revoking the passports of citizens who join the opposition to Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria. In Belgium, the government threatens to revoke benefits for Belgian nationals who do the same. And in America, the New York Times reported only a month ago on the growing threat to the West as Western Muslims rush into the fight against Assad. In fact, only this past August 20, the Washington Free Beacon reported that "[s]ignificant numbers of American and European jihadists are traveling to Syria to join Islamist rebels, prompting new fears of a future wave of al Qaeda terror attacks in the United States and Europe, according to U.S. officials."

Into The Fray: David Harris’s ‘stunning shortsightedness’

By MARTIN SHERMAN

 

It is becoming increasingly difficult to respond with any degree of courteous civility to the advocates of the so-called “two-state-solution” (TSS).

Binyamin Netanyahu, Bill Clinton and Yasser Arafat Photo: REUTERS

Minister Naftali Bennett’s remarks, rejecting outright the vision of two states for two peoples, are stunningly shortsighted

– David Harris, American Jewish Committee executive director, June 17, 2013

Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel

– Yasser Arafat, Jordanian TV, September 13, 1993 (the day he signed the Oslo Accords on the White House Lawn)

The idea of a two-state solution should be dead, today, because unfortunately a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would bring about Israel’s demise
– Yuval Steinitz, The Jerusalem Post, September 14, 2008

It is becoming increasingly difficult to respond with any degree of courteous civility to the advocates of the socalled “two-state-solution” (TSS). Maintaining the shabby pretense is simply proving too perilous. The time has come to dispense with the false façade of social decorum and to call a spade, a spade, to deem the moronic, “moronic” and the myopic, “myopic.”

Dangerous, delusional dogma

This applies equally to longstanding supporters of this dangerous delusion, who resolutely refuse to acknowledge error – despite the manifest misery and mayhem its misguided pursuit has wrought; and to recent neophytes, who have inexplicably, and inexcusably, embraced this patently preposterous policy proposal – despite their past opposition to it being unequivocally vindicated.

Likewise, it applies to senior Israeli policy-makers, who have shown neither the necessary intellectual depth nor daring to formulate a cogent counterparadigm, and thus have been coerced into endorsing this disproven dogma; and to leaders of allegedly pro-Zionist organizations in the Diaspora – principally the US – who, whether for reasons of political naiveté, or social nicety, have perversely embraced the establishment of an illiberal Muslim tyranny as the litmus test of refined liberalism.

Israel's only two options

Caroline Glick

 

Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is in Europe this week seeking to convince the Spanish and Norwegian governments to support the Palestinian bid to sidestep negotiations with Israel and have the UN General Assembly recognize Palestinian sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem in addition to Gaza.

The Palestinians know that without US support, their initiative will fail to gain Security Council support and therefore have no legal weight. But they believe that if they push hard enough, Israel's control over these areas will eventually unravel and they will gain control over them without ever accepting Israel's right to exist.

Fatah's UN gambit, along with its unity deal with Hamas, makes clear that the time has come for Israel to finally face the facts: There are only two realistic options for dealing with Judea and Samaria.

Either the Palestinians will take control of Judea and Samaria, or Israel will annex them.

Rethinking the Two-State Solution

PolicyWatch 1408

 

 

Giora Eiland and Martin Indyk

Also available in العربية

Policy #1408
October 3, 2008-reposted Aug. 31, 2013

On September 23, 2008, Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Giora Eiland and Ambassador Martin Indyk addressed a Policy Forum luncheon at The Washington Institute. General Eiland is former head of the Israeli National Security Council and currently a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. Ambassador Indyk directs the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. The following is a rapporteur’s summary of their remarks.

The Two State Concept is Wrong

David Ha'ivri

This might come as a surprise to some, but many Israelis do not believe that establishing a Palestinian state is the right thing to do… Some Israeli leaders feel that they can only depend on the Palestinians for one thing - their dedication to getting in the way of any permanent resolution. The truth is that in that one area, they do have a very impressive track record. 

PA is teaching hate in their schools. The PA chairman insists that Jews will not be allowed to live in the Palestinian state in his vision…

For the past 20 years, the international community has been pouring billions of dollars into the Palestinian Authority. A great part of these massive international funds found their way into the pockets of PLO functionaries who became wealthy as a result. Part of these funds contributed to monthly pensions that the PA pays convicted terrorists in Israeli jails…

Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood supporters place X marks on Coptic homes

Jihad Watch

The Christian Copts of Shubra al-Khaima, Egypt, are in a “state of panic and terror” as “a number of supporters of ousted President Muhammad Morsi have been placing markings on Christian homes in the area for [future] targeting.”
Speaking anonymously, one Copt from the region told Veto News agency that they “recently noticed strange movements in the streets. When they went to inspect, they discovered large numbers of bearded men, who began to quicken their steps. They tried to catch up with them but couldn’t. When they returned, they discovered “X” marks in black on the homes of Copts, separating them out [from Muslim homes].”

The Kurds Can Lead a Reborn Syria, At Peace With ALL of Her Neighbors

Robert B. Sklaroff and Sherkoh Abbas

As this is being composed, American ships are rushing to the Levant, presumably preparing to launch a bombing-campaign in reaction to the mass-gassing that Assad again directed at his citizenry. Although pundits could analyze the reasons for—and consequences of—the delay of this effort, it is only necessary to “get into the weeds” far enough to identify how a “coalition of the willing” can quickly be assembled to stop the slaughter…and to build a stable, peaceful Syrian society. The Kurds have been issuing humanitarian appeals to the international community to save the Syrian Kurds, but it finally seems their plight is finally being “heard”…or maybe not! In any case, the way breaking-events may be placed within a larger context is explored at the end of this op-ed.

COP: The Legacy of Liberalism

John C. Goodman

8/31/2013

The 50 year anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington is causing a lot of people in my generation to reminisce.

In doing so, it is hard not to be struck by two puzzling facts: (a) the fall of racial barriers to success almost everywhere and (b) the lack of economic progress in the black community as a whole, relative to whites. On the one hand, it would seem that a black in America can achieve almost anything, even being elected president of the United States. On the other hand, if we compare the economic condition of blacks and whites as a whole, you would be tempted to conclude that almost no progress has been made.

For example, blogger Brad Plummer reminds us that:

· The gap in household income between blacks and whites hasn't really narrowed at all in the last 50 years.
· The black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate for 50 years.
· For the past 50 years, black unemployment has almost always been at recession levels.

This incongruity has given rise to two liberal myths — repeated frequently on television talk shows over the past week: (a) that the fall in racial barriers is the result of liberal legislation, designed to outlaw discrimination in the private sector and (b) that the lack of economic progress is evidence that liberals haven't done enough — that still more intervention is needed to correct the effects of current and past discrimination.

For It and Against It

Sultan Knish

FOR IT AND AGAINST IT

Ten years ago, James Clapper, now the Director of National Intelligence, said he was “unquestionably sure” that Saddam’s WMDs had been moved out of Iraq. Top Iraqi generals stated that the WMDs had gone to Syria. But all that fell on deaf ears.

John Kerry’s senate career began with a bang when he traveled to Nicaragua to obstruct President Reagan’s policy of arming the anti-Communist Contra rebels. Now Secretary of State John Kerry is taking part in arming the Free Syrian Army rebel allies of Al Qaeda and pawns of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In his Sandinista days, Senator Kerry had said that America should not subvert its values “by funding terrorism to overthrow governments of other countries”. Since then John Kerry has changed his mind. It turns out that he was only against funding terrorists to overthrow the governments of other countries before he was for it.

WMD Liberal Hypocrisy in Iraq and Syria



Spokesman for Catholic Church in Egypt: “Shame on Obama If He Is a Christian”




THE RACISM RACE

Obama’s insistence on framing black racism as black anger, as a response to white bigotry rather than bigotry itself, is why the national conversation on race that he insists on having every time he takes a tumble in the polls never goes anywhere.

Spokesman for Catholic Church in Egypt: “Shame on Obama If He Is a Christian”

Daniel Greenfield

The “if” part would be key here.

Father Rafic Antoine Greiche is the Head of the Press Office of the Catholic Church in Egypt and he isn’t exactly happy that Obama has spent a lot of time pressuring the Egyptian government into returning the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists burning churches and killing Christians to power.

An Egyptian Christian leader is calling out President Barack Obama and his administration for not doing enough in face of intense persecution against the Church by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Following the recent barrage of church burnings, Father Rafic Greiche, the chief spokesman for the Catholic Church in Egypt, criticized President Obama for not speaking out against the worst violence against Egyptian Christians in nearly 700 years.

Syria Claims Terrorists Behind WMD Attack Will Carry Out Similar Attack in Europe

Daniel Greenfield


Obviously Assad’s propagandists have no credibility, but the reason this claim is interesting is because of the way it dovetails with the Iraqi and Turkish seizure of Al Qaeda chemical warfare facilities.

Syria’s deputy foreign minister said on Wednesday that the United States, Britain and France helped “terrorists” use chemical weapons in Syria, and that the same groups would soon use them against Europe.
Speaking to reporters outside the Four Seasons hotel in Damascus, Faisal Maqdad said he had presented U.N. chemical weapons inspectors with evidence that “armed terrorist groups” had used sarin gas in all the sites of alleged attacks.
“We repeat that the terrorist groups are the ones that used (chemical weapons) with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and this has to stop,” he said. “This means these chemical weapons will soon be used by the same groups against the people of Europe,” he added.

The last paragraph has been widely taken to mean that the attacks were carried out with direct Western aid, but he may simply mean that the West is helping the groups responsible.

Back in June, Iraqi authorities claimed that they broke up an Al Qaeda plot to use Sarin domestically and against the US and Europe.

Op-Ed: Terrible Days are Coming Upon Europe

Europe is passive as it goes down and lower down once again.

Giulio Meotti

The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a twice-weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. He is at work on a book about the Vatican and Israel

Only negativity is unleashing in the spiritual sky of Europe.
In some European countries, such as Greece, Hungary and Ukraine, anti-Semites are already serving openly in parliaments. In Italy, one of the lawmaker of the Five Stars movement, the country's biggest party, Paolo Bernini, just called Zionism "a plague", not so much different from Iran's Rouhani rethoric.

Just as 14th-century Christians once held the Jews responsible for the epidemic Black Death, the Israelis are now blamed by the Europeans for all the ills of today's world.

Anti-Semitism in Europe has become a spiritual disease which is growing like a cancer, like the HIV virus which ultimately destroys the body.

Anti-Semitism in the United States is mere racism; in Europe it is more than intolerance, it is a religious disease, infectious and massively destructive.

Tension and skepticism as Obama nears Syria moment

MICHAEL WILNER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT

As US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry continue to make the case for intervention in Syria, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll suggests that a majority of Americans still oppose any military involvement in the Syrian crisis.

US President Obama participates in the CEO Summit of the Americas in Cartagena April 14, 2012. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON - Speaking on Friday from the White House, US President Barack Obama said he still hadn't made a final decision on whether or not to strike Syria. But the president made clear that a response, of some kind, is fast approaching.
At this point, the nature of that response is a mystery to no one.

A fifth US Navy destroyer with 300 Marines on board joined four warships positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean, "ready to go," according to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, should the president give the order. On Saturday defense officials said that a sixth destroyer had joined the five already in the Mediterranean as a precaution. "It is not in the national security interest of the United States to ignore clear violations of these kinds of international norms," Obama said on Friday. "A lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it."

Why Is Obama Contemplating Military Strike On Syria, Where No Massive Security Risk To U.S. Exists?

But Not Iran, That Is Developing Nuclear Weapons?

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=7377

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has queried why President Barack Obama is contemplating military strikes against the evil Bashar Assad regime in Syria –– whose brutality in the current bloody and tragic Syrian civil war is conspicuously clear, but does not directly endanger the United States and its allies –– but has refused to contemplate military strikes against Iran, whose ongoing development of a nuclear weapons capacity does pose a direct threat to the United States. 

In addition, those fighting the Assad regime are Sunni Islamist extremists including al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, who will also perpetrate massacres upon innocent civilians if they prevail, calling into question the wisdom of siding with the rebels. Both sides are monstrous, making it far from clear which side prevailing would benefit the U.S.

The ZOA expressed its puzzlement following reports that President Obama has ordered a declassified report on Syrian use of chemical weapons be prepared for public release before any U.S. military strike is launched against Syria and that, at a meeting of President Obama with top advisers, “There was no debate … a military response is necessary.” 

US Admin Seeks Green Light to Respond Militarily to Syria’s Chemical Crimes

There is a moral imperative for this pacifist, diplomacy-centric administration to undertake a tailored military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons, was John Kerry's message to the American people
By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus
The Jewish Press

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry

In a press conference held in the middle of the day on Friday, August 30, U.S. secretary of state John Kerry made a compelling argument to the American people that the United States must respond militarily to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against its people.

Kerry, speaking from the Treaty Room of the State Department just four days after a press briefing in which he declared the use of chemical weapons on Syrians a “moral obscenity,” informed the American people that there is no longer any doubt that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad – Kerry called him “a thug and a murderer” – and Assad’s regime which used chemical weapons on its people.

Latest NYT Denunciation of Israel

Leo Rennert

Jodi Rudoren, the Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times, is not exactly in sync with Israelis who go about their business and shrug off the chaos and turmoil in neighboring Arab states. As she makes clear in an Aug. 29 dispatch about how Israelis take in their stride the bloody and sickening upheavals next door ("Amid Chaos Israelis Take A Stoic View" front page).

Israelis, she writes remain preoccupied with the start of the school term, the finale of a popular TV show and preparations for the High Holidays, content to leave bigger problems to other people. 

For the most part, the article, based on interviews with two dozen Israelis, pretty much reflects a current mood, although a careful reading leaves the impression that this mood doesn't exactly suit Rudoren. 

Yup Obama has Israel's back-read on...

U.S. spy network’s successes, failures and objectives detailed in ‘black budget’ summary

By Barton Gellman and Greg Miller

U.S. spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats, according to the government’s top-secret budget.

The $52.6 billion “black budget” for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former ­intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.

Note: Read to last line in article

The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program details the successes, failures and objectives of the 16 spy agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, which has 107,035 employees.

U.S. Attack on Syria Won't Change Anything

Barry Rubin

Forgot about the hysteria of an impending U.S. attack on Syria. Forget about the likely self-congratulatory backslapping by policy makers and the chanting of, “USA!” by citizens. A U.S. air assault on Syria will not change anything  for the benefit of U.S. interests or even for the well-being of the Syrian people.

Clearly, it will not change the regional problems, including the U.S. support for an Islamist government in Egypt, the unstable Islamist government in Tunisia, the grim expectations for a “peace process,” the constant betrayal of the United States by the Turkish government, and the Iranian nuclear race. But beyond that, it won’t change the Syrian crisis.

Would the attack determine the outcome of a Syrian civil war, either in favor of the Iranian backed government or the Islamists favored by the United States? No. Would it by itself increase the prestige and credibility of the United States in the Middle East? No.

Why So Many Palestinian High-Tech Entrepreneurs Hate My FORBES Cover Story

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/08/28/why-so-many-palestinian-high-tech-entrepreneurs-hate-my-forbes-cover-story/

“The negative reactions to an article that tries to suggest an optimistic perspective on Israeli-Palestinian relationships are disappointing. They are a reflection of the strengthening culture of avoidance and extremism promoted heavily by some Palestinian leaders who have given up hope for peace. All this said, readers of FORBES could realize on their own that something is happening between people on both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, which is more powerful than any political cynicism or unnecessary pressures. Eventually, the people, and not their political leaders, will decide whether they want to live in peace or to live in conflict forever.”
–Izhar Shay, head of Israel operations for Canaan Partners, a multi-billion dollar global venture capital firm

—
There’s a popular word in modern Hebrew (on loan from Israel’s Russian immigrants) called balagan, which means ‘mess’ or ‘chaos.’ To give the word some context, last November, when an Israeli army patrol jeep was struck by an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza, the vehicle’s 21-year-old commander phoned his parents (who had seen something about a jeep attack on the news) to try and reassure them. “We had a big balagan,” he told his dad. “I’m slightly injured, but I’m okay. You don’t have to come to the hospital.”

In fact, that young commander – it turns out he’s a distant relative of mine – had 35 shards of metal in him, plus a blown-out eardrum. He and the three soldiers riding with him were lucky to survive, and I penned an account in the attack’s aftermath.

The Al Dura Case: White Hats, Black Hats, and Dunce Caps

RAEL JEAN ISAAC 

The supposed death of 12 year old Mohammed Al Dura on September 30, 2000, captured in the famous video that showed him clinging to his father in terror at the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip as Israeli soldiers shot them both, has become the enduring image of the Second Intifada launched by Arafat--which was in part justified by that image in the world's media.

Unlike many of the gray area incidents that propel world events, this one has the clarity of an old-fashioned Western: there are white hats, black hats and--an addition to the standard formula-- dunce caps.

Black Hats 

First in line are the Arabs who staged the fake atrocity and the Arab cameraman working for France 2 who took  the video and vouched for its accuracy.   It's hard to get too worked up about them--this is what Arabs do.  It's up to those to whom they feed this material to be wary and if they are taken in,  to correct their mistake as soon as they discover it--and fire those who mislead them.

Obama's bread and circuses

Caroline Glick

 

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 air power 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."

How Obama Hugged the Brotherhood to Death

Sultan Knish

When the dust settles in Cairo, at least long enough to make out anything through the smoke and flames, it may turn out that the Muslim Brotherhood has suffered its worst blow at the hands of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. .

The blow will not have been intentional. Like the killing of Bin Laden, a useful intervention carried out by Navy SEALS who were perhaps less than enthusiastic about Obama's plan to use the civilian trial of the terrorist leader as a prop for dismantling the military tribunal system, it wasn't something that he meant to do.

It just happened.

Obama could never have intentionally defeated the Muslim Brotherhood. But he may have just hugged it to death.

To understand the Middle East is to understand that such petty things as the deaths of hundreds of protesters or massive street fighting don't really matter all that much. Not in a region where Saddam Hussein or the butchers of Sudan could pile up enough corpses to start an entire country and still enjoy the support of the Muslim world.

The trick is killing the right people. Saddam Hussein killed Shiites and Kurds with religious and ethnic differences from the region's Arab Sunni baseline. Sudan killed Christians and Animists who are infidels and rebellious dhimmis making them even more foreign and more 'killable".

It is that foreignness which is all-important. Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslims unless they're somehow 'foreign' either by being members of a heretical sect or a different ethnic group. And if all else fails, they can be pawns of foreigners. That is why both sides in Egypt keep accusing each other of being Jews.

Who are the neo-con cowboys now?

• BENNY AVNI
• Last Updated: 1:13 AM, August 30, 2013

The secretary of state boiled with moral indignation, American pride and war bluster. The defense secretary huffed that America has “moved assets in place” and is “ready” to punish the strongman. And though the president says he has yet to decide whether to attack, leaked details of the coming military action were all over the newspapers: Within “days,” US Navy ships will launch a barrage of Tomahawks at selected targets.

Have George W. Bush and his band of cowboy neo-cons retaken the White House?

If only. This time the secretary of state is John Kerry, who launched a political career opposing the Vietnam War. The defense secretary? Chuck Hagel, who revived his career by quitting his party after the Iraq war.

They’re part of a team that includes Vice President Joe Biden, who once vowed to impeach any president that goes to war without congressional approval. And, of course, President Obama, who became president in large part because, as a junior senator, he voted against the Iraq war. And who has been insisting that the “tide of war is receding.”

What’s up with all that?

What Barack Obama Can Learn from Israel about Confronting Syria

GIDON BEN-ZVI August 29, 2013

With President Barack Obama ordering his national security team to prepare a declassified report for public release, it appears that the prospect of a military strike by the United States on Syria is imminent. Yet, while developments in the Middle East are forcing the Commander in Chief to act decisively and with all due haste, every major poll taken about the public's attitude towards another foreign conflict reveals a sobering trend: Americans don't want to engage.

As such, a President who has long based his foreign policy on how it will play at home may be tempted to intervene in Syria's growing humanitarian crisis by way of swift, dynamic action that is utterly lacking in continuity or consistency.
While Obama is inching towards a response to the Syrian use of chemical weapons, there is much he can learn from another country that has acted on its own red line with regards to the rogue regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad: Israel.

Israel has declared openly that it will prevent new arms from being transferred from Syria to the Hezbollah terrorist group, based in Lebanon. Without openly admitting it, Jerusalem has acted to enforce this threshold.

Iran commander: US strike on Syria will mean the 'imminent destruction' of Israel

ARIEL BEN SOLOMON, REUTERS

Assad: We’ll defend ourselves against any attack; Turkish Foreign Ministry hints at taking military action.

Mohammad Jafari Photo: REUTERS/Stringer Iran

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards chief said a US military attack on Syria would lead to the “imminent destruction” of Israel and would prove a “second Vietnam” for America.

Maj.-Gen. Muhammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in an interview late on Wednesday with the Tasnim news agency that a US strike on Syria would not help Israel.

“An attack on Syria will mean the imminent destruction of Israel,” Jafari said.
The interview was widely picked up by Iranian media on Thursday.
Tasnim, which launched in 2012, says on its website that it is devoted to “defending the Islamic Revolution against negative media propaganda.”
Jafari, as quoted by Tasnim, also warned the United States that it risked embroilment in a costly and protracted struggle if it intervened in Syria.

The commander of the Iranian al- Quds Brigades, Maj.-Gen. Qassem Suleimani, told a closed meeting Wednesday that the countries of the Levant “will be the graveyards of the Americans,” according to Hezbollah’s al-Manar website.
“Syria will turn into a more dangerous and deadly battlefield than the Vietnam War, and in fact, Syria will become the second Vietnam for the United States,” he said.

Analysis: Are Syrian and Iranian threats just bluster?

By ARIEL BEN SOLOMON

 

US military expert says Syria is capable of attacking Israel, as it has hundreds of scud missiles and others from Iran, such as the Fateh-110 surface-to-surface missile that has at least a 200-km range.

A Syrian regime gathering point is seen through a sniper scope Photo: Reuters

Syrian and Iranian discourse over the past week has been threatening non-stop against Western intervention in Syria.

Leaks to the Arab and Iranian press by Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah officials include warnings that death awaits Western countries if they choose to attack. This talk is reminiscent of previous rhetoric on the Arab street issued by figures such as former Iraqi information minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, also known as “Baghdad Bob” for his flagrantly exaggerated propaganda leading up to the 2003 Iraq war.

“The infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad,” he had claimed at the time to CNN reporters.

What are Syria’s real capabilities? The Jerusalem Post spoke with Jeffrey White, defense fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who served in the US Defense Intelligence Agency for 34 years and closely follows Middle Eastern military affairs.

White says that Syria has the capability to attack most of Israel, as it has hundreds of scud missiles and others from Iran, such as the Fateh-110 surface- to-surface missile with at least a 200-km. range. Syrian units have experience using these missiles, he added.

The Pros and Cons of Attacking Syria

A Symposium

by David P. Goldman
PJ Media

http://www.meforum.org/3599/attacking-syria

Kudos to Michael Ledeen for explaining that the road to Damascus starts in Tehran. As Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu explained on Aug. 25, "Assad's regime isn't acting alone. Iran, and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah, are there on the ground playing an active role assisting Syria. In fact, Assad's regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran's testing ground. … Iran is watching and it wants to see what will be the reaction to the use of chemical weapons."

We are at war with Iran, and I have little to add to Michael's excellent summary. As he reiterates, we have been at war with Iran for decades. The only distinction is that Iran knows this and the Obama administration pretends it's not happening. Because the American public is disgusted with the miserable return on our investment of 5,000 lives, 50,000 casualties, and $1 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are too timid to push for decisive military action to stop Iran's nuclear program — although air strikes rather than ground troops would be required.

I made a similar case on March 29:

It's pointless to take potshots at Obama for failing to act on Syria. What we should say is this: "Iran is the main source of instability in the Middle East. Iran's intervention in Syria has turned the country into a slaughterhouse. By showing weakness to Iran, the Obama administration encourages its murderous activities elsewhere in the region."

The unbearable passivity of triangulated policies that require “slam dunk” intelligence

theoptimisticconservative 

It’s a percussion symphony out there.  The drumbeat of stalwart European readiness to strike Syria has become unsteady – boy, that was quick – but now comes the drumbeat of doubt about whether Assad, his actual self, actually ordered the actual chemical attack on 21 August (along with an apparently less urgent doubt that it was the regime in the first place).

FWIW, and up front, I think it was the regime that mounted the attack, and that that’s what matters.  (Whether that means we need to bomb air-defense installations and empty weapons storehouses is another question.)  Achieving the concentration and scope of toxic effects that we have seen, in both gruesome video and eyewitness reporting, is something the Assad regime is well capable of doing.

The rebels, less so.  At least some of the rebels have the capability to mount a small-scale chemical attack using rockets or mortar rounds.  But the power and concentration of an attack that would slay more than 1,000 people at once, using discrete chemical rounds lobbed through the air (as opposed, say, to spraying an area with concentrate, which would deliver the toxic compound more surely), is something we would be much more likely to see with regime weaponry and expertise.

"Unreal"

I thought perhaps I would not post again about Syria until something actually happened, or until the whole shebang was called off.

 

But I've thrown up my hands with incredulity. And now I've decided to make a few comments.

 

What I find most incredible is how President Obama is behaving.  Since when is it proper form for a head of state to go on television and discuss a hostile military action he's thinking of taking, complete with multiple details? 

 

This may come as something of a shock to him, but a president is supposed to make decisions, not just waffle.  Those decisions should be made quietly in consultation with appropriate decision-makers within the country -- Secretary of Defense, leaders in Congress, etc.  Then, as has been decided, action should be taken, after which public explanations of what is being done and why it is being done are very much in order.

Self-serving posturing over Syria

By Melanie Phillips

The US, Britain and other western nations are about to make a bad mistake if they launch their threatened military strike at Syria. Far from displaying Western strength, the strike reportedly being planned may instead disastrously confirm the enemies of the civilised world in their view that the US and UK are a busted flush, reduced merely to self-promoting posturing as a substitute for principled purpose and toughness of resolve.For what is being proposed is no more than an empty gesture. It is that most vacuous, cynical and desperate of political knee-jerk reactions – the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’. Anything. As long as there is absolutely no cost to the political leaders urging such action. At least, no cost that can be unambiguously pinned on them.

 

The driving force behind this stirring call to arms is apparently Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, who is so determined to be seen to be ‘doing something’ that he is urging a clearly reluctant President Obama to do it too.

Egypt: al Jazeera ‘National Threat,’ Bans Channel, Arrests Journalists

Egypt banned the pro-Muslim Brotherhood Al Jazeera affiliate in Egypt and arrested journalists and former politicians. In response, the Muslim Brotherhood called for increased street protests for Friday, August 30.

 By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: August 30th, 2013

 The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists Egyptian ministers announced that al Jazeera’s channel in Egypt is a national threat.

 They have banned the affiliate and arrested four of its journalists. In their statement, the Egyptian ministers of investment, telecommunications and information accused al Jazeera Mubashir Misr of spreading lies and rumors damaging to Egyptian national security and unity.

 The statement read: “Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr does not have a legal basis for its presence in Egypt, and it has been shown that it does not possess any of the licenses and permits that it requires to conduct its operations on Egyptian territory.” The Egyptian government took this step the day after Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government.

 The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. 

Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license.

 In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

Egypt banned the pro-Muslim Brotherhood Al Jazeera affiliate in Egypt and arrested journalists and former politicians. In response, the Muslim Brotherhood called for increased street protests for Friday, August 30. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: August 30th, 2013 print tell a friend The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists Photo Credit: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Egyptian ministers announced that al Jazeera’s channel in Egypt is a national threat. They have banned the affiliate and arrested four of its journalists. In their statement, the Egyptian ministers of investment, telecommunications and information accused al Jazeera Mubashir Misr of spreading lies and rumors damaging to Egyptian national security and unity. The statement read: “Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr does not have a legal basis for its presence in Egypt, and it has been shown that it does not possess any of the licenses and permits that it requires to conduct its operations on Egyptian territory.” The Egyptian government took this step the day after Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government. The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license. In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

Egypt banned the pro-Muslim Brotherhood Al Jazeera affiliate in Egypt and arrested journalists and former politicians. In response, the Muslim Brotherhood called for increased street protests for Friday, August 30. By: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Published: August 30th, 2013 print tell a friend The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists The Egyptian government banned the al-Jazeera affiliate in Egypt, arrested four of its journalists Photo Credit: Lori Lowenthal Marcus Egyptian ministers announced that al Jazeera’s channel in Egypt is a national threat. They have banned the affiliate and arrested four of its journalists. In their statement, the Egyptian ministers of investment, telecommunications and information accused al Jazeera Mubashir Misr of spreading lies and rumors damaging to Egyptian national security and unity. The statement read: “Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr does not have a legal basis for its presence in Egypt, and it has been shown that it does not possess any of the licenses and permits that it requires to conduct its operations on Egyptian territory.” The Egyptian government took this step the day after Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government. The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license. In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

The Egyptian government took this step the day after Al Jazeera Mubashir Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government. The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license. In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government. The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license. In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

Misr broadcast a message from the Muslim Brotherhood’s spokesman Mohamed El-Beltagy. Beltagy, speaking from an undisclosed location, criticized the interim Egyptian government. The Brotherhood’s spokesman also emphatically denied that his organization is a terrorist organization. While it may be fine for an American politician from the Republican party to go on the air and criticize U.S. President Barack Obama, things don’t go down quite the same way in Egypt, or, for that matter, in any Muslim country in the Middle East. Although they cannot actually block al Jazeera from its communications satellite, Egypt’s ministers of investment, telecommunications and information issued a public statement banning the channel for using satellite transmitters without an official license. In addition to making the announcement banning the Qatari channel, the offices of Al Jazeera’s Mubashir Misr were raided and four of its journalists were arrested. Correspondent Wayne Hay, cameraman Adil Bradlow and producers Russ Finn and Baher Mohammed were detained on Tuesday, the network said on Thursday, calling the arrests “a campaign against al Jazeera in particular,” the Guardian reported. In addition to the detention of the al Jazeera journalists, Egyptian officers also located and arrested Mohamed el-Beltagy, as well as the former Labor minister Khaled al-Azhari. The arrests, in turn, prompted the Muslim Brotherhood to ramp up calls for nationwide protests against Egypt’s military-backed government. The Egyptian government immediately responded to the call by warning that live ammunition would be used against protesters who attack public institutions. Friday will be another day of violence in Egypt.

Read more at: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egypt-al-jazeera-national-threat-bans-channel-arrests-journalists/2013/08/30/

Are We Willing to Defend Ourselves?

Peter Huessy

The U.S. Air Force has just completed a review of the ballistic missile threats to the U.S.: China is building more ballistic missiles than anyone – and faster. By 2015, Iran's and North Korea's long-range missiles will be able to reach the United States.

The Israeli Air Force, on June 7, 1981, carried out Operation Opera, in which F-16s flew hundreds of miles and successfully destroyed the nuclear facility in Osirak, Iraq -- the difficulty of the task only increased by the absence of laser-guided technology and the distance the jets had to fly.

When, shortly after, President Ronald Reagan was asked whether a National Security Council emergency session should be called to "assess what to do," he replied, "Well, boys will be boys," and calmly proceeded to the presidential helicopter. No NSC session was convened.

This was a time when Americans cheered when the "tough guys" -- John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Clint Eastwood, Keefer Sutherland, Bruce Willis, Sean Connery -- defended the "good guys."

In that 1981 raid, the Israelis, the good guys, God bless them, defended not only Israel, but all of us. Thirty years later, are we willing to defend ourselves?
Or do too many Americans, if we use military force, see our country as a "bully"?
Franz Fanon, a cult figure in the 1960s and the Marxist author of the book, "The Wretched of the Earth" -- favorably mentioned by our nation's President in "Dreams From My Father" and still widely read on American college campuses -- apparently saw America as an imperialist nation and our military as an instrument of oppression.

America’s Impending Defeat in Syria

Barry Rubin

It’s really pretty simple. The American people understandably don’t want to go to war with Syria — not to mention with Syria’s patron, Iran — and especially not for the goal of putting the Muslim Brotherhood and murderous Islamists into power there. Going to war is a serious matter, to say the least. There’s no assurance how long it will take, how many lives it will cost, and what turns it may take. And the Middle East has just had several examples of these wars.

 

Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot of money and lives as they extended for a much longer time than had been expected. In addition, they derailed the Bush administration’s electoral fortunes and domestic programs. With the main emphasis of the Obama administration being a fundamental transformation of America, such distractions are not desired.

 

There is one other important consideration: the Obama administration does not accept the traditional diplomatic and great power strategies. It believes that it can reconcile with Islamist states, it does not comprehend deterrents, it does not keep faith with allies, and it does not believe in credibility, the belief that only power exerted can convince a foe of seriousness.

Massive Protest Set Against 'World's Most Dangerous Islamist,' Who Lives in Pennsylvania

PAUL L. WILLIAMS, PHD           

Fethullah Gulen has been called "the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth."
He resides not in Islamabad or Istanbul but within a mountain fortress in Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania.
On Saturday, August 31, hundreds of Turkish Americans are expected to descend upon the fortress to protest the "Gulen movement" and the havoc it has wrought throughout Turkey and Central Asia.
Armagan Yilmaz, one of the planners of the protest, maintains that Gulen, who created the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma, AKP) which now controls the Turkish government, is responsible for the murder of scores of Turkish intellectuals, writers, and journalists - - some of whom were "burned alive" - - and the incarceration of thousands of Turks who have opposed the radical Islamization of the once secular nation.

Abdullah Gul, Turkey's first Islamist President, is a Gulen disciple along with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Yusuf Ziya Ozcan, the head of Turkey's Council of Higher Education.
Under the AKP, Turkey has transformed from a secular state into a nation with 85,000 active mosques - - one for every 350- citizens - - the highest number per capita in the world, 90,000 imams, more imams than teachers and physicians - - and thousands of state-run Islamic schools.
To suppress opposition to his plan of a "new Islamic world order," Gulen, according to Mr. Yilmaz, has created a special police force, known as "Cevik Kuvvet." This force of over 6,000 thugs combs the country to sort out all those who reject Gulen's brand of militant Islam.

Cirque du Jihad

KAREN MCKAY           

The bizarre jihadist circus that just closed at Fort Hood, Texas, has been a carbuncle on the American body politic that exposes the underlying disease, "Political Correctness," commonly referred to as "PC."
When US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, whose business card identified him as a "Soldier of Allah," opened fire on unarmed soldiers in Ft. Hood's Soldier Readiness Center-like shooting fish in a barrel--he was shouting the Islamist battle cry "Allahu Akbar."  Under a sane government, that attack would have immediately been labeled terrorism and/or an act of war, not to mention treason.
Instead, President Obama called the attack a "horrific outburst of violence" in a speech before the Tribal Nations Conference at the Department of the Interior that day-after he had thanked the Department staff for "organizing just an extraordinary conference," thanked his cabinet members and administration officials who had participated, and given "a shout-out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner... Dr. Joe Medicine Crow. It's good to see you." The official White House transcript of the President's brief remarks reveal that it wasn't until the middle of the third paragraph that he got around to announcing the "horrific" events of that day.  If he hadn't before this day, Obama, who doesn't know what a corpsman is or how to pronounce the word, and is clueless as to what the Medal of Honor is and means, proved that he is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Obama Gets His War On

Sultan Knish

Yesterday the media was too busy drowning the country in the spectacle of the antics of a former Disney starlet at the Video Music Awards for a cable channel that no longer does music videos to report on the antics of a former community organizer who was busy sketching out plans for an illegal war that he had been on record as opposing.

Shamelessness is the quality that Barack Obama's antics in Washington and Miley Cyrus' antics in
Brooklyn have in common. Not merely a shamelessness that emerges out of a humiliating episode, but shamelessness as their fundamental attribute. A shamelessness that aspires to be cool because it appears to achieve the ultimate goal of coolness of not being bound by anything at all.

Miley Cyrus was once a Disney starlet. Obama was once anti-war. In 2007, he told voters that the president does not have the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally go to war unless there is an urgent threat to the United States. Now he's planning a second war in which the only urgent threat is to the military prospects of his Islamist allies for taking over another country.

Obama's shamelessness isn't incidental to his actions; it's their whole point. Like Cyrus, he is celebrating his liberation from any standard or value, triumphing over them through attitude alone. And in a world without morals or values, the only thing that counts is power and the will to use it.

Syria Does Not Satisfy the Powell Doctrine

Larry Elder

President Barack Obama said that an introduction of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war would constitute a "red line" with "enormous consequences" that "would change [his] calculus." That was a year ago. This past March, Obama said, "We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. ... We will hold [Bashar al-Assad] accountable."

 

Credible sources -- including Britain, France and U.S. intelligence agencies -- accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons on two or more occasions, once last December and possibly twice during March. Obama took no action.

Last week, Secretary of State John Kerry again made an allegation of another use of chemical weapons, this time resulting in the deaths of up to 1,000 men, women and children. "It is undeniable," said Kerry, that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. Obama officials now say, off-the-record, that a military strike of some sort -- probably cruise missiles -- is just a matter of when.
Let's back up, ask some questions and revisit a few assumptions.

The Israeli Spring

Victor Davis Hanson
        

Israel could be forgiven for having a siege mentality -- given that at any moment, old frontline enemies Syria and Egypt might spill their violence over common borders.

The Arab Spring has turned Israel's once-predictable adversaries into the chaotic state of a Sudan or Somalia. The old understandings between Jerusalem and the Assad and Mubarak kleptocracies seem in limbo.
Yet these tragic Arab revolutions swirling around Israel are paradoxically aiding it, both strategically and politically -- well beyond the erosion of conventional Arab military strength.
In terms of realpolitik, anti-Israeli authoritarians are fighting to the death against anti-Israeli insurgents and terrorists. Each is doing more damage to the other than Israel ever could -- and in an unprecedented, grotesque fashion. Who now is gassing Arab innocents? Shooting Arab civilians in the streets? Rounding up and executing Arab civilians? Blowing up Arab houses? Answer: either Arab dictators or radical Islamists.