Get PJ Media on your Apple

Spengler

Syria Attack Shows There’s No Alternative to Neutralizing Iran

May 5th, 2013 - 8:03 am

Iran’s intervention in Syria has turned the Syrian civil war into a proxy conflict between the region’s Shia and Sunni. Iran’s intent is to transform Syria from an ally into a protectorate. Syria’s Sunni majority resented but tolerated an Alawite police state, but will fight to the death against prospective occupation by a foreign Shi’ite power. Saudi Arabia and Turkey will continue to pour resources and fighters into Syria to prevent an Iranian takeover. The Sunnis fear a regional Iranian reign of terror under a nuclear umbrella and will fight to the death to prevent it. The Shia-Sunni conflict in Syria may spill over into Iraq, where remnants of Saddam Hussein’s military leadership have armed and recruited a Sunni fighting force, and Lebanon, where a jihadist “Sunni Awakening” challenges Hezbollah.

Sunni-Shia conflict is not necessarily averse to American interests; as Daniel Pipes, the dean of conservative Middle East analysts, wrote April 11, “Evil forces pose less danger to us when they make war on each other. This (1) keeps them focused locally and it (2) prevents either one from emerging victorious (and thereby posing a yet-greater danger). Western powers should guide enemies to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing, so as to prolong their conflict.” (I made a similar argument last year.)

Everything changes, though, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Instead of a containable war of attrition, we will have an Iranian reign of terror under a nuclear umbrella. If Washington and other Western capitals are intimidated by Iranian terror capabilities (including the Iranian threat to disrupt Western oil supplies) without nuclear weapons, what can we expect from the feckless diplomats of the West if Iran has the option of nuclear terrorism?

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (50)
All Comments   (50)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Exactly. That's why I favour America providing any materials Israel can't get elsewhere and let it take out the Iranian nuclear facilities. Obama doesn't have to fire a shot, just let Israel do what needs to be done.

I also like the idea of having the Israelis do the shooting this time. The humiliation for the Muslims of having their plans foiled would be wonderful. I don't know if it would teach them to finally smarten up and be civilized but at least it would feel right from a kharmic point of view.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
The U.S. has been in the way of that happening for decades. Would probably be quite a different Middle East today if we'd gotten out of their way a long time ago and been on the ready to provide any needed support.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Nukliarize Iran into green glass.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
The question is simple, the implications are enormous. The argument about reducing or terminating Iran's war making capacity is convincing (not only for me but also for Iranian exiles here along the Rhine). BUT... and here is the question:

Do you really think that the Obama administration will follow your advice? Such a decision is not evident. The analyis is excellent, but is it more than an exercise in words? Obama, if he acts, will most likely not find much international support -- and I mean not just mean lack of Russian agreement.

I bet I hear soon on German tv the thesis that the Israeli bombing of the military stockpiles is unwise policy, could lead to war, another example, following Günter Grass, of Israeli aggressivity. Heck, timing permitting, I'll dabble in various European press accouints. The current German tv consists of equating the Palestinian prisoners of Israel with the poor souls in Gitmo, i.e., Israel receives a Grassian painting. So, what makes you think that Obama & Co will buck a pacifiistic ambient in the Western, viz., European world?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have often written, that the US, or anyone else should not try to manage events, but rather watch them unfold.

In this case, I agree with Pipes: let them emulate the Kilkenny cats.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
“… the series of fireballs … around the Syrian capital … make clear that an enormous amount of ordnance was in place.”

The big flashes are being presented, especially to the Moslem public, as indications of how powerful the IDF bombs were, bombs dropped as an act of aggression. As the great Allah says in Holy Ko-Ran 2:59, “We sent a plague upon the Jews from heaven, for their evil-doing.”

There’s a lot of ordnance in place, alright. The stockpiles of missiles are a terrible problem, just ask any Jew living in the north of Israel about that. But the biggest bomb of all is the Islam belief system loaded into each Moslem’s head. Even with Iran stripped of its nukes, that big bomb would still be there, sitting inside the brains of a billion Moslems, percolating in an electrochemical stew, set to begin a replacement nuclear program wherever the opportunity presents itself, which it will.

From what I can tell, we goys stupidly think this is a problem for the Jews living in Israel. It’s a problem for Europe and Hindustan, but America is the second biggest target after Israel. But, oddly, thanks to Operation Smiling Buddha, it may be the Hindus who get a thermonuclear suntan first. That’s a long way from the Holy Land, and from any Jew.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
A solid Strategic decision by the Israelis. I would have expected no less.

Assad can't respond, he's a bit busy at the moment. And other than perfunctory condemnations, no one is going to indict Israel for this.

50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
A silly quibble. The attacks were Tactical, not Strategic. Strategically Israel protects itself, tactically it takes out one threat.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
While I expect the Israelis to use the Syrian chaos as an opportunity to degrade Syrian/Iranian/hizballah capabilities, I can help but wonder if the airs strikes were a favor to Obama either to cover his ass regarding his inaction over the crossing ofnhis 'red lines' or was giving the Israelis a green light his actual response yo the crossing of those lines?
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I do not take Mr. Goldman to task for making the case for neutralizing Iran's nuke program. Another PJ Media commentator, Barry Rubin, has made the case for not doing so in the past, but not recently as far as I have noticed. I don't know the answer, but I agree with Mr. Goldman that the proxy war Iran is waging is coming out in the open more. Israel has felt the need to strike targets in Syria - evidently both those moving critical war material into Lebanon and fixed installations in Syria. It has become clear that Iran is committed to the point where Israel has felt it has to react. I simply don't know what it would take to neutralize Iran's nuclear program. People here and elsewhere say it is or isn't possible for various reasons. I think the Mossad may well be better informed. Heck even the CIA might know better than random commenters on the internet, but I don't want to seem naive. We don't even know what Obama may do, though I agree with those who will be truly surprised if he sends in the big stealth bombers and bunker busters. That said, for a post colonial college professor (and I have know plenty) he has more stomach for intervention than most. His preference for largely risk free interventions is what I think will keep him from doing it. So surprise me, Barry. I don't mind being wrong on this one.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
I read the other day that a new bunker buster has been developed which is even more powerful than the previous biggest, called the MOAB (Mother of All Bombs). I don't recall the designation for the new bomb so I'll just call it SuperMOAB for convenience. In any case, SuperMOAB has apparently been tested and shown to be effective against even the deepest fortifications.

As I understand it, the biggest technical obstacle Israel faced in going after the Iranian nuclear facilities was the absence of a bomb that could deal with really deep underground fortifications. That problem has now been solved.

Unfortunately, the new bomb seems to require a very large bomber to deliver it, apparently a B52 or a B2. I'm not sure if Israel has any of those.

I'd love to see America sell Israel some of the new SuperMOABs as well as the bombers to carry them if the Israelis don't have something suitable.

Of course an Obama that is reluctant to bomb Muslims himself is probably going to be just as reluctant to allow Israel to bomb them. But selling Israel the wherewithal to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities would be a very good way to end the Iranian nuclear threat.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
For a long time Saddam was the counter of Iran. We systemically dismantled that and then overthrew Saddam. More or less a repeat of our history with Iran post WWII. As if Iran was not bad enough, they and Syria are now allied with Russia and if theres such a thing, allied with a 'semi-neutral' China and the likes of Venezuela, etc. Not sure where Eygpt actiuaaly lies but.........

Regardless, much of the problems today are the by product of decades of neo-conservatiive agenda influences in the Middle East of which a largre part of the intellectual and Jewish community have long been a part of.

How and why the GOP and its conservatives ever became so entrenched in neo conservative social and geopolitical ideological agendas is beyond me and I've studied and searched for that answer a long time. Their social and geopolitical agendas are absolutely contrary to those 'proclaimed publically' by the GOP conservatives.

All that said, we (U.S. Gov't) let them (neo-cons) put the U.S. and Israel into a bad corner in which we OR Israel, may have no other alternative than to confront Iran and whomever else rises up on their belhalf. It won't be as simplistics as so many are manipulated into believing.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
You ask, "How and why the GOP and its conservatives ever became so entrenched in neo conservative social and geopolitical ideological agendas is beyond me...." I'm surprised you don't remember. When the US was attacked on 9/11, the usual suspects trotted out the old staple of anti-American propaganda, here and abroad, that the US was the enemy of democracy and the bulwark of tyrants in the Middle East and elsewhere, and that this was the true motivation of the terrorists notwithstanding al-Qaeda's stated reasons. Neo-conservatives, many of whom were former liberals, thought that "realist" foreign policy in the Middle East gave us the worst of both worlds--propping up unpopular authoritarian regimes which exploited anti-Americanism to deflect popular discontent. It remains to be seen what the long term consequences of withdrawing support from (or even overthrowing) such odious regimes may be. However, what's clear is that as soon as the Bush administration adopted the Wilsonian policies called for by the left since the Cold War, the left turned on a dime, donned the uber-realist mantle and proclaimed itself utterly indifferent to Saddam's internal genocide, attacks on US aircraft patrolling no-fly zones, support for terrorism, etc. The left's useful idiots on the right gleefully joined in, creating the phantom menace of neo-conservative "Zionist" cabal. So the how and why is that conservatives again fell for the liberal rope-a-dope, thinking that if they adopted a liberal policies, liberals will like them, liberal, fell into a typical liberal trap, and then the left's useful idiots on the right promptly shot themselves right in the foot.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, Hub, my question had-has nothing to do with 9/11.
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hafez and Saddam sitting in a tree k-i-s-sing first comes love then comes marriage then is born Bashar in the baby carriage
http://www.danielpipes.org/9744/hafez-al-assad-vs-saddam-hussein

Hafez would never give Saddam WMD . In a civil war the possible end of your tribe who know? But Saddam giving Bashar all his WMD including his nukes from an invasion of the The great Satan ,this is very important not to push under the rug as has been done for the past 10 years
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
footnote
Also Bashar was born on 9/11 . Makes Saddam believe he is the chosen one to continue the struggle against the great Satan.( Even a secular type dictator with back against the wall converts to the Great Satan belief about USA.)
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu left Sunday night for a six-day mission to China, which many interpreted as a sign that Israel did not plan to step up its campaign in coming days — or expect a serious attack. "nytimes

I pray he avoid temptation from the beauty China women with lips dripping with honey
50 weeks ago
50 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All