Lebanon will be an issue settled or not by the Lebanese and local neighbors. The US other than diplomatic and economic pressure will not take sides. Especially under Obama. It is very hard from this distance to know the various local players in Lebanese politics and candidates. We hope a more westernized and civilized group emerges. We would like a government that can control and restrain its more radical elements like Hezbolla provoking war with Israel.

The US will deal with dictators and evil regimes because realpolitics requires that we have to do so unless we want to start a war or assassinate every leader that we do not like.

Syria really ought to change to an inherited kingdom to create an orderly succession. Son of Assad had very little control initially and was under the management of Assad’s generals and power brokers. He is more westernized than many and may have greater sympathy to modernize his country. The lesson of Arab rulers is not to challenge the religious power structure, especially if you are from the secular Baathist party. Assad comes from the Allowites and they are a minority so his clan or tribe may have less manpower to intimidate, so he has to use guile instead. The main risk was in 2003 when the US was on a roll and could have easily rolled right into Syria. He gambled that the US would not and his was right. Then in order to maintain his street credibility he allowed fighters to transit through Syria into Iraq and that was a big problem for us. After we finally shut down that corridor with the alliance with the Sunni tribes (Anbar Awakening) in that area. We finally got Iraq under control and were able to focus on getting rid of the Iraq AQ in the country and the Shiite and Sunni killer groups eliminated or suppressed.

Syria is not a strong power either economically or militarily. They do have a strategic location. They allow the residents of neighboring countries to transit through Syria to leave the Middle East as many Lebanese did during the conflict with Israel.

Syria was called one on the countries that comprise the axis of evil. But they are really a little evil and not a big threat. More bluster than real threat. Iran is a real threat or maybe like Iraq want to appear so. Middle East politics seems to depend on blustering that each country is bigger and meaner than any other. Arab boastfulness is a portion of the Muslim identity.

Since Iran is pretty closed to good intelligence we cannot properly access whether the threat is real or not. I will assume the threat is real. Iran having a nuclear gives them a lot of power to dominate politics in the Middle East. The major threat is Israel. Iran believes that we have been too chastised by our Iraq adventure to be a problem and that is probably correct. However the fact that we have significant troop, air and naval presence next to Iran should be a factor for them to be wary.

Jordan has a lot of trade with Israel and will not contemplate a war with Israel. Egypt suffers more from the problem of the Muslim Brotherhood and Palestinian gangsters to wish to fight Israel. Plus Egypt has been paid off by the US for years to moderate is stance with Israel.

So the only real problem is loss of US intelligence, support and arms if they take unilateral action against Iran. That is a big loss. So they need to access Obama to see if it is better to be treated as an unpopular friend or an enemy. I think that good way to figure the dangers of being on Obama bad side is how they dealt with the Chrysler hedge funds, which is very ruthless indeed. Bush would never have acted that badly and Israel has to determine the likely downside of pissing off Obama.

Muslim pride not withstanding I really doubt that Pakistan will as a state go to war with Israel. That would open them up to a Taliban coup and Indian invasion. China no way will interfere they would be more likely to snatch a few decent ports from Iran instead. Russia is providing weapons and technical assistance, but probably has been hoping that the US would take out the nuke threat a while ago. Otherwise why would they delay so long on the contracts and doing the work stoppages? Russia primary focus is control of the gas fields and Iran being damaged would give then better contracts because Iran would need that help more to gain hard currency.

So Russia figures that Israel taking out Natanze is OK as long as they get their personnel out which I believe has been done already. Conventional bunker busters would be used and Israel has the refueling capacity for the long run. The only thing that stopped them was during Bush was the issue of Iraq airspace and that we kept the option of refusing passage. Israel does not want the US to shoot down their plans in a mistake of whether we really mean to stop them from overflying Iraq. That is still an issue with Obama and I would not take the chance if I were Israel but take the long route instead.

My sense is that if Israel successfully does the raid that they will not suffer major consequence from the US. Nothing is better than a winning hand. Probably easier to get forgiveness than permission. Beside they may make better relations with the next US administration that may be done in 4 years.

Iran will be not a danger for another 5years while they rebuild. A failure to do this raid may embolden NK moves to cause an issue to get more money. Regrettable we cannot take out NK since China will back then up. They are already have destroyed their economy yet the ruler and his henchmen will not leave power.

So Iran with it s nuke capacity destroyed is a net plus for Israel and the US. The only one left of the axis of evil will still be a thorn in S Korea and the US side.