Why Bombing Syria Will Not Help Israel


oaOne of the more familiar arguments for bombing Syria is that it will help Israel.

Israel doesn’t need that kind of help. Israelis successfully destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. During the Syrian Civil War, Israel has carried out a number of strikes against Syrian targets. If anything, NATO intervention will stifle Israel’s ability to operate in Syrian airspace as it is kept out of the fight for political reasons to avoid offending Muslims; the same way that it happened during the Gulf War.

Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have all threatened, openly or covertly, to bomb Israel if an attack happens. And there is every reason for them to do it. Drawing Israel into the conflict is the trump card of Muslim countries worried about being bombed by the United States. The one thing that panics NATO more than anything else is having the Muslim world think that it is fighting Israel’s war. And it is likely to counter that by preventing Israel from fighting back.

On the security front, the total collapse of Israel’s border with Syria into armed terrorist camps is far more disastrous than an Assad victory. Combined with the growing unrest in the Sinai, Israel is being confronted with dangerously unstable borders held by terrorist groups on almost all sides.

Assad is a dangerous enemy, but one that can be checkmated through threats of retaliation. The Jihadists taking his place have no country and will hide behind a civilian population of human shields forcing Israel to play the same defeatist humanitarian games to minimize civilian casualties as in Gaza.

The Arab Spring has brought Israel to the brink of facing Hamas’ Muslim Brotherhood parent group in Egypt and in Syria. Considering how much damage Hamas managed to do by using human shields to prevent Israel from striking back, life on the Golan Heights could become very ugly indeed.

Furthermore a Muslim Brotherhood victory in Syria would endanger Jordan. A Muslim Brotherhood Syria would be in an excellent position to bring down the Jordanian monarchy, arm Jordanian Palestinians and take down Israel’s last stable border.

Morsi sowed chaos in the Sinai during his very brief rule. A Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria consolidating power completely after a bloody civil war would have even more freedom of action.

Those arguing for intervention often bring up Iran. But the motives for bombing Syria have nothing to do with Iran. The best evidence for that is that Samantha Power, Obama’s ambassador to the UN, actually spent a good deal of time trying to reach out to Iran and convince the regime to cut ties with Syria over its supposed WMD use.

If stopping Syrian WMDs were really a step on the path to stopping Iranian WMDs, Samantha Power would not have followed such an absurd course. Instead Power and Obama want to negotiate with Iran, but want to bomb Syria.

It’s not Iranian WMDs that they are concerned with. It’s helping the Sunni rebels win in Syria. And rebel victories in Syria are far more likely to put WMDs into the hands of terrorists than the status quo.

Likewise the claim that Obama’s credibility on Syria must be preserved to protect his credibility on Iran is without substance. Credibility is only an issue with Iran if we assume that any amount of pressure or sanctions could compel it to give up its nuclear program. No such methods have worked or will work.

The sanctions regime is nothing but a delaying tactic to allow Iran to complete its nuclear program. Discrediting the idea that Iran can be intimidated into giving up its nuclear program is the best way to shortcut to an intervention that might actually stop Iran from going fully nuclear.

Obama has some credibility when it comes to bombing Syria. He has no credibility when it comes to bombing Iran. The sooner that Israel and everyone else understand that, the sooner Israel will be free to take whatever steps it needs to and that will free us from playing along with Iran’s negotiations maze that leads nowhere except toward the inevitability of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Iran knows that Obama wants to bomb Syria as part of a pro-Sunni intervention in a regional religious war on behalf of Saudi Arabia and that this project has little overlap with its nuclear plans for Tel Aviv. Credibility in fighting Saudi Arabia’s war is not the same thing as credibility in standing up for a country that Obama has spent two terms kicking around.

The United States bombed Iran for Kuwait in 1988 and Iraq for Kuwait in 1991. And then we bombed Libya for Saudi Arabia in 2011 and we are now contemplating bombing Syria for Saudi Arabia in 2013. It has been reliably established that if a Muslim country with oil really needs us to bomb someone, we will do it. But Israel is in a different category. It isn’t an oil-rich Muslim country.

Bombing Syria adds no deterrence or credibility to an Iranian nuclear scenario. It only warns Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he can nuke Israel, but that he had better not touch Saudi Arabia.

Obama wrangled Israel into an awkward Sunni Islamist coalition between Erdogan’s Turkey, the House of Saud and Morsi’s Egypt. And Prime Minister Netanyahu went along with it. But now Egypt is bowing out of the Islamist camp and returning to the way things were before the chaos of the Arab Spring.

It is in Israel’s interest to likewise reset the situation in Syria.

The Hezbollah-Syria-Iran weapons pipeline will remain a threat, but the Shiite axis will be more isolated than ever and the Shiite devil you know may be better than a Muslim Brotherhood axis menacing Israel across multiple borders with the support of Washington D.C. And a more stable region with fewer militias raiding WMD compounds will be good for Israel.

The Middle East of four years ago was not an extraordinarily good place for Israel, but it was a better place than it is today. Israel could do worse than a regional reset. The Arab Spring in North Africa may be irreversible, but in its immediate neighborhood it is already being reversed.

Bombing Syria will not help Israel, which will be in the firing line for a war being fought to benefit Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

And the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Michael Garfinkel

    Daniel Greenfield, Caroline Glick and other astute observers have a similar take on what is transpiring in the Middle East.
    Caroline Glick has gone so far as to call Netanhayu “cowardly” for agreeing to the release of convicted terrorists, while Greenfield has suggested that the Israeli prime minister is “too small a man” for these times.
    Which begs the larger question: why is Israel seemingly frozen in place while Iran and Hezbollah prepare her nuclear annihilation? Is Israel a deer caught in the headlights? What is going on?
    I haven’t come across any meaningful exposition of Israeli thinking in this regard.
    A discussion of this nature is sorely needed.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Is Israel a deer caught in the headlights?”

      I wouldn’t put it that way but you’re not far off the mark. They’re desperate to find a way around the roadblocks of treacherous Western nations dead set on appeasing Iran regardless of the consequences.

      “I haven’t come across any meaningful exposition of Israeli thinking in this regard.”

      They probably think wrongly that 0′Bama attacking Assad means that 0′Bama is more pro-military than before, not realizing that 0′Bama doesn’t hesitate with Iran because he’s a dove but because he’s truly anti-American.

      They might also think that once action commences, spillover will eventually lead to some justification for Israel to go ahead and attack Iran where Iran needs to be attacked. Kill the Iranian regime, the nuclear program, or both.

      • Michael Garfinkel

        I don’t think the strategic thinkers in Israel are operating under any illusions about Obama, or anything else for that matter.

        Therein lies the mystery.

        My guess is that they have taken into consideration contingencies that we are not aware of.

        Still, it’s getting very late, isn’t it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Still, it’s getting very late, isn’t it?”
          Right. And that’s exactly why it seems perhaps rational to them because as far as they can see, having 0′Bama attack Syria is the closest thing to action they’ll get any time soon. Plus it would take some pressure off of the absurd “peace negotiations” pressure.
          Or maybe they realize rationally that it would compromise 0′Bama such that Israel eventually would have more autonomy. That sort of makes sense. Risky, but not implausible.
          I just don’t know for sure.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            The idea for an American attack on Syria, which in any case was never intended as a strategic effort, has been abandoned. The American approach to the situation in Syria has been feckless, to say the least.

            What is clear is that the E.U., Russia, and the United States have exerted enormous pressure to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran.

            The Israelis are approaching an existential crisis. And Netanyahu has acknowledged as much, having declared that Israel will not allow a second holocaust to be visited upon the Jewish people.

            That where things stand.

            If I had to guess, I would say that Israel will strike Iran, and hopefully, the military and political consequences will be difficult, but not catastrophic.

            But like you, I just don’t know.

        • EarlyBird

          “Still, it’s getting very late, isn’t it?”

          Michael, Israel has always looked out for Number One, as they should (as every government should). We know it’s not getting very late, because the Israelis haven’t struck Iran yet by themselves.

          They obviously prefer US help, and may need some logistical help, but if they really feel that Iran is ready to go nuclear, they are going to strike in any way they can on their own, with or without the US.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We know it’s not getting very late, because the Israelis haven’t struck Iran yet by themselves.”

            OMG we need emoticons for this site.

            http://cdn.madamenoire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/black-woman-rolling-eyes.jpg

            “They obviously prefer US help, and may need some logistical help, but if they really feel that Iran is ready to go nuclear, they are going to strike in any way they can on their own, with or without the US.”

            Yeah, and it’s so simple we don’t even need to discuss it.

            http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/teen-boy-rolling-eyes-4891387.jpg

          • WW4

            I’m all for Israel having more autonomy. But war hawks have been peddling the “It’s getting very late” line, particularly with regard to Iran, for literally 30+ years. Someone has to have written an article on it, by now. It reminds me how every time the Rolling Stones put out a record, the usual sycophantic critics fawn “It’s their best since Exile on Main Street!” WIth Iran, doomy scenarios are always imminent. It’s not so much really actually “getting very late” as “getting late” is more, let’s say, existential.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But war hawks have been peddling the “It’s getting very late” line, particularly with regard to Iran, for literally 30+ years.”

            If you get a car full of people and then another one plays chicken with you, the passengers will cry that it’s getting late up until it’s resolves. One way or another.

            The cold war prevented focus on Iran and then Bush thought he could deal with them with his NWO narrative. Not all NWO narratives are the same by the way. Anyway…because so much time had already passed, that justified taking a slower pace going forward.

            That doesn’t mean the risks are not real. That also doesn’t mean we haven’t taken interim measures that slowed them down. In other words, your comment is interesting but doesn’t argue at all that Iran is not a serious and urgent threat today.

            And we actually have zero rational reasons for delay. So what’s the problem? Even if we find out later, gee we could have waited another 2 years…would that be a problem? We have plenty of reasons to attack the regime and none to wait. The only one I hear is that “crystal balls” are not as accurate as some people would like. Well, it’s delusional to think that they could be more accurate than they are.

      • wildjew

        Report: Obama ‘Vetoed’ Israeli Strike on Iran
        Strike would have occurred during height of 2012 election campaign

        (Washington Free Beacon, Times of Israel, etc.)

        If you’ve watched and listened to PM Netanyahu over the years, it is clear he places inordinate trust in the United States and her goodwill toward Israel and her security. I think this trust is greatly misplaced. Bush surrogates (e.g., Admiral Mike Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) pressured Israel to not bomb Iran’s nascent nuclear sites. How much more Obama and his administration? If Netanyahu continues to defer to Obama and his wishes, Iran will join the nuclear club. We might see many dozens, perhaps hundreds of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians and their proxies in decades to come. In the event, the world will be a very dangerous place.

        • Gary Jenkins

          It’s a dangerous place because of the existence of Zionist Jews.

          • wildjew

            Please explain.

          • defcon 4

            I’m sure “Gary” thinks it’s a self-evident fact, perhaps as revealed in the holey quran or hadith.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s a dangerous place because of the existence of civilization traitors like Gary Jenkins.

      • EarlyBird

        “They might also think that once action commences, spillover will eventually lead to some justification for Israel to go ahead and attack Iran where Iran needs to be attacked. Kill the Iranian regime, the nuclear program, or both.”

        Bingo.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          That’s not a good reason for us to attack Syria. That’s a good reason for Israel to hope for an attack on Syria if they think that’s their best chance to deal with Iran without being impeded by 0′Bama.
          In theory, if we could be assured this was part of some larger game plan to deal with Iran, I might bite. But I actually think Assad becomes more important as a buffer state once Iran’s nuclear program has been taken out.
          We need Assad in Syria. If Israel doesn’t see the threat from the caliphate movement, they’re getting tunnel vision from fear of Iran.

          • EarlyBird

            “That’s not a good reason for us to attack Syria. That’s a good reason for Israel to hope for an attack on Syria…”

            Exactly. Israel isn’t lobbying for an attack on Syria because it would be good for America, but because it could turn out as a good opportunity for Israel.

            “…if they think that’s their best chance to deal with Iran without being impeded by 0′Bama.”

            Agreed. Or perhaps in the heat of battle they can sucker Iran into shooting a missile at one of our ships, and oila’ Israel has it’s American war on Iran.

            “…But I actually think Assad becomes more important as a buffer state once Iran’s nuclear program has been taken out.”

            I get your point that Assad is preferable to a jihadist run Syria, but how does Assad become more important if Iran’s nukes go away?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Exactly. Israel isn’t lobbying for an attack on Syria because it would be good for America, but because it could turn out as a good opportunity for Israel.”

            Because Israel, unlike all other nations, must be purely altruistic and sacrifice all of its interests to the USA because Carter was so good to them.

            “I get your point that Assad is preferable to a jihadist run Syria, but how does Assad become more important if Iran’s nukes go away?”
            That’s a fair question. Iran without a nuke program will be easier for the Sunni jihadis to attack.They’ll need Syria to keep the region stable. Without Syria and without an Iranian nuclear detterent, all of the momentum favors a Sunni caliphate in the region without too much more effort. It favors them already but we’re managing to keep it balanced for now. We need to be very careful.
            WW3 may not even be avoidable at this point. But joining Russia in the region to support Syria would be a huge opportunity to calm the region down and give us a lot more latitude in taking out the Iranian nukes. If Russia understood that attacking Iran would not be on the whole bad for them or for their relationship with Syria, that seems like a positive thing for Western civilization.
            Maybe I should run for POTUS in 2016. A lot of you guys just don’t seem to get it.

          • EarlyBird

            “Because Israel, unlike all other nations, must be purely altruistic and sacrifice all of its interests to the USA because Carter was so good to them.”

            Oh please. I’m stating that the US needs to do what it needs to do for itself first. Perhaps you’ve finally come to understand that there are times where Israeli and American interests are at odds.

            We can expect a lot more chaos and bloodshed in the Muslim world before we see anything resembling calm – like generations of bloodshed. We are seeing the natural sectarian order reasserting itself, and the dissolution of artificial, Western-created borders which stuffed various sects and tribal families into a single nation.
            The West can avoid a WWIII if we stop trying to play the Great Game, and let these people work things out, and just focus on containing and eliminating WMD to protect ourselves.

          • defcon 4

            Yes, let’s “let these people work things out” and slaughter everyone non-muslime in the Mid-East and N. Africa.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The West can avoid a WWIII if we stop trying to play the Great Game, and let these people work things out, and just focus on containing and eliminating WMD to protect ourselves.”

            http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/teen-boy-rolling-eyes-4891387.jpg

            In the 20th and 21st centuries, the only way to stop playing the great game is to submit to the other players. Ostriches are not immortal. I don’t know what fairy tales you’ve been reading.

            And not all “WMD” are equal by any stretch. Syrian Sarin is nothing compared to Iranian nukes. Take your eye off the prize and you might get clobbered. Just like your hero did. Many times.

          • EarlyBird

            You terrified ninny. AIPAC sure has done its work on you. Right wing paranoiacs are much bigger dangers to the world than Iranian nukes. How about you join the IDF and stop whining?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Cogent reply. For an ostrich hiding out in LA.

      • EarlyBird

        NO, stupid, pay attention: normal people don’t expect the world to go up in flames the moment Iran gets nukes, because they are not paranoid, deranged, fundamentalist right wing “Christian” reactionary fascists. Even Israel doesn’t believe this, but they are depending on traitorous Americans like you to carry the US into a war for them. You tool! They just don’t want a challenger in their neighborhood. Stop reading your Fox News talking points and think. Pit your own country ahead of Israel for once, you weirdo.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “They just don’t want a challenger in their neighborhood.”

          Those greedy Joos.

          We know. Yawn.

          Don’t forget that Islam really really really is a religion of peace. That’s the value of your advice.

          • EarlyBird

            If we stopped trying to control the part of the world from where the “religion of peace emanates,” we would dramatically decrease the threat from that cult, and dramatically increase our national security and strength without firing a shot or spending a dime. In your medieval worldview, it’s always a zero sum world and America must control as much of it as possible. No chance of overreach or disaster in that. Sure, that may have happened to every other empire it he world, but we’re Exceptional, and if you don’t believe that, you’re an evil leftist.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If we stopped trying to control the part of the world from where the “religion of peace emanates,” we would dramatically decrease the threat from that cult, and dramatically increase our national security and strength without firing a shot or spending a dime.”

            It doesn’t work in reality. It’s not possible to do as you suggest. Even if your view of Muslims were accurate, that they could never mount a threat against us (you’re wrong) there are other empires that will use resources and political maneuvers in the region to force us to submit. You can’t defend our freedoms without considering the realities of today’s technologies. Which it seems you don’t actually understand at all, or certainly you don’t understand the implications.

            Noticed all of the wars we’ve had for the past few centuries? Those are wars of ideology more than anything else and the politics of various personality cults are able to leverage those ideological currents to make their various plays for world domination.

            You’re insane if you think there are not at least 3 ideological currents that want to dominate the world and 2 of them are totalitarian. Furthermore, there are factions within those currents. If you think that we can just “leave them alone” and they’ll “leave us alone,” you are certainly too ignorant to engage usefully in the kinds of conversations we’re having here.

            “In your medieval worldview, it’s always a zero sum world…”

            You’re ignorance is stunning. Isolationism is zero sum. American hegemony fosters synergistic relationships. Why do you say such stupid things?

            “…and America must control as much of it as possible.”

            You don’t quite comprehend the things you pontificate upon. American must ensure that others don’t control. That requires dominant hegemony but not totalitarian control. Most humans appreciate our dominant hegemony. Most humans on earth wished that they had American citizenship. Is this news to you? Why do you suppose that is? Most humans on earth support dominant American hegemony when they understand what it is with greater precision than you do. And most of them do. Most humans would object to your solutions.

            “No chance of overreach or disaster in that.”

            Every position has risk. Your positions have the greater risks and the fewest rewards, not counting outright immediate appeasement and submission. In your plan we can pretend to have a clear future and worry about submission when you’re proved wrong.

            “Sure, that may have happened to every other empire it he world, but we’re Exceptional, and if you don’t believe that, you’re an evil leftist.”

            You don’t even know what American Exceptionalism means. It simply means that we have the means and the moral authority to take leading positions in the world and that what you might also call “internationalism” and some absurd notion of a natural kind of “global democracy though public opinion claims” is complete nonsense.

            These theories work in your mind. That’s because you don’t understand enough about how the world actually works. There is no shame in seeing that it’s over your head. There much for you to be ashamed about in your stubborn refusal to see that it is over your head.

            What makes you a leftist is either accepting leftist dogmas uncritically and allowing your worldview to be shaped by these dogmas (that’s you) or by actively promoting a new world order in the internationalist mode. The former are dupes of the latter. You’re a dupe. I’ve said that consistently. You’ve said nothing that shows any evidence that I’m wrong.

            What you should really be ashamed of is attacking (other) people for no reason other than their positions conflict with your delusions. Attack me all you want. Jumping all over people in order to pursue your little Quixotic agenda of “cleaning of the Republican Party” is delusion on the highest order. You’re attacking the Republican Party on behalf of the left. You just don’t know it. That’s what dupes do.

          • EarlyBird

            You can’t read. I never suggested isolationism. I never stated all threats would evaporate. I stated that threats would decrease, and our security would increase by us disentangling ourselves from unnecessary wars.

            To you, jumping into every conflict is our mission from God. You are such a fantasist, and so divorced from reality, I wonder if you are posting from a loony bin.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You can’t read.”

            Between the 2 of us, at least 1 is very stupid.

            “I never suggested isolationism. I never stated all threats would evaporate. I stated that threats would decrease, and our security would increase by us disentangling ourselves from unnecessary wars.”

            Well you’re wrong. I’ve read plenty of what you write and I think I understand your own delusions even better than you do. Which is not really bragging…

            “To you, jumping into every conflict is our mission from God.”

            Do me a favor and please show me where my reading comprehensions is inferior to yours and start quoting me when you make unhinged accusations about my alleged positions. You push the “mission from God” BS when you support 0′Bama’s “heart and minds” nonsense, which is not really about being generous. It’s about harming our interests and wasting our money.

            Do they still commit people with schizophrenia? Be careful, they might not allow you to harass people on the web from where you’re going.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Pit your own country ahead of Israel for once, you weirdo.”

          Pit yourself ahead of your spouse for once, you weirdo. Because I said so.

    • rogerinflorida

      FWIW: The fact is that Israel has very limited military options when it comes to attacking Iran. They are able to mount an attack, or some small number of attacks, the problem is that they do not have the muscle to destroy the regime or the nuclear weapons program. If they do attack Iran then they make certain what is otherwise speculative; that is a general Iran/Israel war, a war that Israel would probably lose. The only realistic military option Israel has is a nuclear first strike, and they are not at the point yet where they will launch that.
      As far as Iran goes; Israel is certainly on the list for attack but not at the top, Saudi Arabia is, but the mullahs know that to attack SA they need to deter US intervention, thus the quest for nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has the US political elite in it’s pocket and is fairly confident that they can order the US to destroy Iran, but even they are hedging their bets, having just procured Chinese intermediate range missiles and lining up a supply of nuclear warheads from Pakistan. Either way a nuclear war is coming

      • Michael Garfinkel

        I think you may be underestimating the damage a conventional Israeli military campaign, with air and naval assets would do to the Iranian nuclear program.

        I also suspect you have overestimated Iran’s conventional military strength.

        I am certain the Iranians appreciate that a major conventional attack on Saudi Arabia will result in all out war with the United States – a conflict they would not survive.

        Having said that, I agree the situation is very grim, and could rapidly escalate once shots are fired. Unfortunately, there are no real instruments at hand, other than military force.

        • rogerinflorida

          MG
          Certainly Israel can do a lot of damage but short of a nuclear strike they are not capable of destroying Iran which is what is required to avert a consequent Israel/Iran hot war. Israel has no capability whatsoever of invading Iran with a ground army whereas Iran has ground capability on Israel’s borders.
          I believe the Iranian calculation is that the US will not intervene to protect Saudi Arabia if Iran can plausibly threaten US forces in the Gulf and Arabian Sea with nuclear weapons. They may be wrong about that but we know that Saudi Arabia is hedging it’s bets. Would a US President Hillary Clinton or similar embark on a war that is certain to result in nuclear strike on US homeland on behalf of the Gulf coast monarchies, tyrants all?
          Either way nuclear war is inevitable, the question is, will it be restricted to the ME or will it engulf the World?

          • Michael Garfinkel

            On January 20, 1981, Khomeini and the Iranian government released the American hostages after 444 days. The Iranians were relieved to end the episode, in no small part because they were anxious to avoid a confrontation with President Reagan, who was sworn in that day.

            With Iranian attention turned towards the Iraqi invasion of their country, Reagan’s “cowboy” persona, which the Democrats trumpeted in the 1980 presidential campaign, worked to end the hostage stand-off.

            This is a fancy way of saying that the Iranians were scared to death of Reagan – which they were.

            Nor had the “students” taken hostages at the Soviet embassy, although this had been considered; the Soviets were quite capable of invading Iran with a land army, and likely would have in similar circumstances. At the very least, after 444 days, they would have bombed Tehran.

            My point is that in order to deter Iran, one may not be required to destroy her. However, one’s resolve and capabilities must be respected.

            I don’t believe the Mullahs are entirely irrational – nor that they represent the only center of power in Iran.

            A serious military effort by Israel, provided there is at at least a threat of American military support, would serve as a deterrent to the Mullahs – while sufficient damage inflicted on that country could very well result in some form of “regime change.”

            However, the window for this kind of limited action is closing, as Netanyahu has said repeatedly.

            Of course, when you invoke the prospect of continuing Democrat administrations, e.g. Clinton, the situation grows murkier and the possible outcomes more dangerous.

          • rogerinflorida

            MG,
            The US is a different country now than it was in 1980, and it will be more different still in 2016. Obama will get amnesty through one way or the other so the electorate in 2016 will be majority moocher. The opposing players in this drama understand this, Israel (or Saudi Arabia) cannot count on all out US support, there is just not the citizen support for it in the US, this is one reason why I believe nuclear war is inevitable. Russia will supply S300s and similar advanced weaponry and the batteries will be manned by Russian soldiers, there is no way such a system can be just handed over and assembled for action like some LEGO set. Israel will have to take out the S300s, Russia will respond, probably with ICBMs with conventional warheads (at least to start) then with increasing force until Israel backs down, this will bring us to the brink, and perhaps into, the abyss of full blown nuclear war. As I said I believe nuclear war at some level is inevitable and the best we can hope for is that it is limited to the ME.

          • Michael Garfinkel

            Yes, in some ways, the United States has declined since 1980, but I don’t think the decline has been as precipitous as your remarks suggest, and the principles of deterrence remain unchanged.

            I don’t see Russia engaging in military action on behalf of Iran. I think the Kremlin would regard direct military involvement as reckless, and would avoid being drawn into a shooting war. Also, the Russians dislike Islamic adventurism even more than the Americans do.

            I would still like to know more about the nature of Israeli and American strategic thinking.There isn’t much out there about this, and I look forward to seeing more analysis about this.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I don’t believe the Mullahs are entirely irrational – nor that they represent the only center of power in Iran.”
            I agree that we can count on rational moves for the most part, but we can’t count on rational decisions all the time. If they have nuclear weapons, we just don’t know when or if some suicidal messianic jihadi will get the idea that he’s the one to bring on the mahdi using nukes. It only takes a handful of lunatics once you’ve got nukes within their reach.
            That’s the point about Iran: Not that they’re all insane or all irrational but that their ideology doesn’t lead them to try to truly safeguard the control of WMDs. Not that they’re the only Islamic regime with that concern, they’re just the most extreme example of instablity in terms of militancy and causing worldwide mayhem.

      • defcon 4

        Soddy Barbaria is where islam’s holiest sites are, somehow I don’t think Iran is going to attack the birthplace of islam and its holiest psychopath, narcissist and warlord.

      • EarlyBird

        “If they do attack Iran then they make certain what is otherwise speculative; that is a general Iran/Israel war, a war that Israel would probably lose.”

        I just don’t think you appreciate what an enormous military power Israel has. They would inflict major damage on Iran, and without a doubt, if Israel really found itself up against a wall the US would come to her aid.

        And what about regional friends of Iran who might want to help? Well, what about them? Hamas and Hezbollah would throw their standard rockets at Israel. Big whoop. Egypt and Jordan wouldn’t lift a finger, nor would Saudi Arabia (who hates Iran). Iraq doesn’t exist any more.

        Let’s not miss the fact that outside of Iran’s nascent nuke program, Israel has never been safer. It’s hard to recognize that when it looks like the Arab world is aflame, but that’s keeping them focused on themselves, not Israel, and turning those nations into basketcases.

        The logistical problem with Iran’s nukes is simply finding them. Even IDF generals themselves openly admit that they can barely locate about 1/3rd of what they suspect exist. Then, after finding them, it’s a matter of hitting them. They are buried very deep underground, and it’s doubtful that many American bunker busters can do the job.

        One thing is for sure: we’ll know that Israel is truly afraid of Iran’s nukes going on-line when they do their own strike alone, with or without the blessings of the US or the “world community.”

        • rogerinflorida

          EB,
          Certainly Israel is a major military power but they do not possess the long range strike capability that they would need to effectively attack and permanently disable Iran. If it was easy like the recent Syria strikes or the attack on the Iraqi reactor then they would have done it already. You have some confidence that the US would aid Israel with an all out military commitment, maybe, see my response to MG below. The fact is that both Saudi Arabia and Israel have doubts about the US, and for very good reasons.

          • EarlyBird

            I just read your scenario above to MG, and it’s terrifying because it’s realistic. I think ay animus that Obama has towards Israel, however, is way overblown. I think he’s simply trying to draw distinctions between Israeli and American foreign policy. Very often the two overlap, but they are not identical.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You voted for 0′Bama twice. What else would you say about him if you can’t admit how stupid you were about that?

          • EarlyBird

            I’d have voted for my cat over McCain/Palin. You should forever be ashamed of voting for them. I like Romney a lot on paper but couldn’t trust him.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’d have voted for my cat over McCain/Palin. You should forever be ashamed of voting for them.”

            Again getting all of your facts by interpreting your own fantasies. I didn’t vote for them. I wisely voted for your cat, who I still say would have been better than 0′Bama in 2008. Plus I’ve already said that I didn’t mind 0′Bama because I thought he would be contained and as a symbol a good thing for unity. He turned out to be a lying radical. That was obvious long before 2012…which brings us to the next statement…

            “I like Romney a lot on paper but couldn’t trust him.”
            Romney was running for POTUS after nearly 4 years of 0′Bama. Given those facts, you’re insane to complain about Romney and your little “gut feeling” as though 0′Bama gave you even one reason to trust him. As if he hadn’t given us all 10,000 reasons to mistrust him.

          • EarlyBird

            Obama is a liberal, a guy in over his head, a man who doesn’t understand business or how money is made, a guy who thinks speeches are more important than actions. I could go on and on and on and on and on.
            But a “radical”?! That’s bizarre. He’s the most tepid, cautious, middle-of-the-road, temperamentally conservative, orthodox president we’ve had since…Truman.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But a “radical”?! That’s bizarre. He’s the most tepid, cautious, middle-of-the-road, temperamentally conservative, uncreative, undramatic, boring, orthodox president we’ve had since…Truman.”

            What you see in the mirror:
            https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5750140928/hEA51501C/

            How many jihadi POTUS have there been? How many red diaper baby socialists? Almost all of them, right?

            If only you could hear the laughter…I’m just thinking about that radical Ike…well in contrast with 0′Bama Ike was a radical. Heck, all of them were.

            Right?

            OK then…

            PS – I wasn’t referring to his business suits or something like that…

          • EarlyBird

            Oh I keep forgetting this is an electronic insane asylum where people come to confirm their paranoiac hallucinations that Obama is a jihadist and a Marxist. Unfu**king believable.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh I keep forgetting this is an electronic insane asylum where people come to confirm their paranoiac hallucinations that Obama is…a Marxist.”

            frontpagemag.com/2012/jamie-glazov/the-communist-frank-marshall-davis-the-untold-story-of-barack-obama’s-mentor/

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh I keep forgetting this is an electronic insane asylum where people come to confirm their paranoiac hallucinations that Obama is a jihadist…”

            You’re saying that 0′Bama is not siding with the jihadis at every opportunity? Few people can make that claim with a straight face.

            Living in a cultural bubble is a lot like living in a bird cage.

          • defcon 4

            If Israel had returned to the pre-1967 borders (islam0nazi code for the indefensible 1948 borders) there would have been a large ethnic cleansing of Jews and non-muslims caught in the areas turned over to muslime control. Strange how that concept didn’t bother the zero in the slightest, but then again the ethnic cleansing and slaughter of non-muslims never does…

        • defcon 4

          Israel has “never been safer”. Gee I guess those ten thousand rocket and mortar rounds fired into Israel don’t keep you up at night do they? Or the continued firing of same.

          • EarlyBird

            Dipcomedy Jam, I’ll let you in on something: the moment I see you’ve responded to a post of mine, I ignore it.

          • defcon 4

            I’m crying on the inside, but laughing on the outside.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m laughing on the inside, but crying tears of laughter on the outside.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      The problem is political correctness. In our political correct society being political correct over rules the truth. Hence, the truth must be avoided at all cost, because the alternative, being called a racist or even labeled a terrorist, as in the case of Jews, is far worse, since the truth will be ignored in any event, and at the same time you will be discredited and your career will come to a very devastating end.

      Indeed, it not only impacts the decisions our leaders on both sides of the political aisle make, it also impacts writers like Daniel Greenfield and Caroline Glick, who always manage to squirt around the main issues while never getting at the actual truth for fear of losing their careers. Indeed, they know the truth very well, but also know very well at the same time the very devastating consequences of revealing that truth. Hence, the truth must always remains concealed.

      • defcon 4

        I was nearly fired from my job at a Fortune 500 company because a lieberal asshat overheard me criticising the religion of peace. As Voltaire said: “To find out who rules you, find out who you can’t criticize”.

        • Gary Jenkins

          JEWS

          • defcon 4

            Are you expressing your admiration for Jews? Good for you! Here’s a bone, go gnaw on it in a corner somewhere.

          • iluvisrael

            Another jealous Jew hating troll – go back under your bridge!

          • EarlyBird

            How about showing a little love for your own country, rather than Israel?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yeah, you can’t “criticize” Jews without some stickler for the facts correcting you. What oppression.

        • EarlyBird

          No, you got fired for being an incompetent, lazy slug. Take some responsibility for yourself. You are an adult now, I’ll buddy.

    • EarlyBird

      “Which begs the larger question: why is Israel seemingly frozen in place while Iran and Hezbollah prepare her nuclear annihilation? Is Israel a deer caught in the headlights? What is going on?”

      Because Iran’s nuclear program isn’t far enough advanced to be a real threat yet. Given that, why shouldn’t they have the US do their dirty work for them. I mean, why not have your servant take out the trash if you don’t have to?

      But we’ll know Iran’s nuclear is getting critical when Israel sticks its neck out with a strike of its own, regardless of US support. They say they can’t do the job alone without US technology and assistance. Well, they’ll buy or borrow some of those bunker buster missiles from us when they really need them.

      And I will wish them luck.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “If stopping Syrian WMDs were really a step on the path to stopping Iranian WMDs, Samantha Power would not have followed such an absurd course. Instead Power and Obama want to negotiate with Iran, but want to bomb Syria.”

    Bombing Syria would take us away from bombing Iran. They’d say we already hurt them yada yada. Let them think about our power. What a joke. As if incrementally ratcheting up “heat” is going to scare these homicidal and suicidal maniacs.

    Bombing Syria was a way for 0′Bama to help the Sunni jihadis while claiming to hurt Iran in such a way that we Americans should celebrate or care about.

    • EarlyBird

      Bombing Syria for its use of chemical weapons makes it harder for the US not to bomb Iran for it nuke developments. That’s why Netanyahu, and AIPAC are currently lobbying for this strike on Syria.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        You have the worst instincts for political analysis of anyone I know that actually tries. There might be dumber people, but they tend to keep their mouths shut.
        It makes it easier to claim we punished Iran already by attacking its proxy / buffer state, and then claiming that it didn’t work so therefore no military solution will likely work short of all out nuclear war.
        The internationalists are big fat liars. You’re either one of them or an idiotic dupe.

        • EarlyBird

          If an internationalist who stakes his claim on enforcing “international norms” against WMD takes action X against a nation which violates those norms, it makes it politically harder NOT to take action against nation Y which later violates those norms. Get it?

          Here are some more dumb people who see it my way (surely all big fat internationalist socialist-Marxist “liars!”):

          http://www.jpost.com/Internati

          http://www.haaretz.com/news/di

          http://www.csmonitor.com/World

          http://www.theatlantic.com/int

          That’s just one part of Israel’s strategy. The other, as we previously agreed, is to push the US into this strike on Syria just to get some bullets flying and hopefully start a war on Iran by default.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point that always escapes you is that you are a dupe. It doesn’t mean everything that they say is approximately like saying that 5 + 3 = 47. Some of
            what they say has basis in truth and seems reasonable. In fact the USA is not necessarily in contradiction to “international norms.” The problem is that internationalist Americans want to diminish US power because we are seen as a force for evil rather than good.

            Believe me, I’ve had these debates all of my life. I know that most “internationalists” or “cosmopolitans” are good-natured. But when they won’t listen to reason and the nuanced explanations, when they quote history the way that Oliver Stone does, that’s when the dupe label is
            appropriately applied. I’m “culturally cosmopolitan” to a point. I’m not a moron. I can walk those lines without getting confused about America and its rightful leadership in many international matters. The UN is an enemy of freedom.

            We could go on forever. But an internationalist Westerner in politics is either a communist or a communist dupe. Patriotic Americans don’t reject all “international norms” but rather understand that some of them are contradictory to justice when they’re applied unjustly, which is how most of our enemies try to use these arguments. Try to wake up.

          • EarlyBird

            Well, you’ve completely changed the subject from what Israel expects to get out of a US strike on Syria, to a condemnation of internationalists (as if I’m one of them).

            You fail to see that Israel is trying to hoist Obama on his own internationlist petard in regard to Syria.

            The sad thing is that you’re a smart, patriotic guy who doesn’t recognize what an absolute radical ideologue he is. Everything is SO extreme, SO black and white. You honestly sometimes seems like you’re doing a caricature of a John Bircher, circa 1952.

            Get you talking about domestic or foreign policy in a serious way, and you expose yourself as a bit of an extremist crank, frankly. If America executed even 2% of your preferred policies, we’d destroy the country and much of the world within a year. You are ANYTHING but “conservative.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Well, you’ve completely changed the subject from what Israel expects to get out of a US strike on Syria, to a condemnation of internationalists (as if I’m one of them).”

            Let me spell it out for you:

            ISRAEL IS THE ONLY PLAYER THAT CAN TURN A SYRIAN ATTACK IN TO A WIN FOR THE WEST.

            I still don’t favor it because there are better ways. But if anyone has a right to argue in favor of a Syrian attack, it’s them.

            Can you understand this point? Do you understand this point? Attacking only Syria, as your leadership has promised would be “bigger than a pinprick but still unbelievably small” would not help our interests but instead would harm them – unless we changed our minds, or someone else carried the ball the rest of the way. Who can do that? Only Israel!

            Get it?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Get you talking about domestic or foreign policy in a serious way, and you expose yourself as a bit of an extremist crank…”

            Here we go again… You think your analysis means anything to anyone that matters?

            More tears…of laughter.

          • EarlyBird

            You are a joke. Truly deranged and paranoid. It’s what becomes of radical fundamentalists. You and the jihadists have a lot in common.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The point that always escapes you is that you are a dupe. It doesn’t mean everything that they say is approximately like saying that 5 + 3 = 47. Some of
            what they say has basis in truth and seems reasonable. In fact the USA is not necessarily in contradiction to “international norms.” The problem is that internationalist Americans want to diminish US power
            because we are seen as a force for evil rather than good.

            Believe me, I’ve had these debates all of my life. I know that most “internationalists” or “cosmopolitans” are good natured. But when they won’t listen to reason and the nuanced explanations, when they quote history the way that Oliver Stone does, that’s when the dupe label is appropriately applied. I’m “culturally cosmopolitan” to a point. I’m not a moron. I can walk those lines without getting confused about America and its rightful leadership in many international matters. The UN is an enemy of freedom.

            We could go on forever. But an internationalist Westerner in politics is either a communist or a communist dupe.

      • defcon 4

        Um do you have any proof for your theory that “Netanyahu and AIPAC are currently lobbying for this strike on Syria”? Please don’t feel inhibited about ranting and raving about zionist conspiracies and the ZOG.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          When Jews offer their opinions, anti-Semites call this “lobbying.” And when Jews open their mouths, this is offensive to Jew haters. Lobbying is a leftist dog whistle as if they don’t have insane, deranged lobbyists attacking US interests but when Israel argues for joint projects, that’s illicit because they’re Jews.

  • Aussie

    What is Israel waiting for? The right time I suppose, I mean we all know that Israel can take care of herself and maybe this time around they should glass every Muslime state bordering it.

    • tickletik

      They need to develop their faith in Hashem.

  • TerrorIsEvil

    The Obami have two clear objectives: 1) to make sure that Islamists are empowered worldwide (does not really matter if they are Sunni or Shite, Obama likes them all), and 2) to weaken Israel (I think that Obama IS an anti-Semite given all the evidence of his past history, affiliations, actions and statements). Obama will use the confusion he has created around Syria to make a deal with the Russians and Iranians which will bring Iran back into the community of nations with their nukes intact. The UN will put the Iranians in some prominent human rights positions no doubt. We are witnessing a stealth jihad with Obama the confused uber-supporter and de facto leader for the Islamic cause.

  • No RNC

    Dan is one of the more brilliant writers regarding the MidEast, Israel & strategy but why does he avoid one of the elephants in the room, the fact that every non-western country that has none or has given up Nuclear weapons have been attacked or invaded by the US or NATO or are under threat thereof. Would Serbia/Yugo have been bombed for 60 days if they had N. Korea’s weapons? Better find a bit of clarity on this issue. BTW, the only sanctions I know that have worked have turned S. Africa into a killing ground for the white citizens!

  • mtnhikerdude

    The Israeli Liberals makes our Liberals look conservative.

    • defcon 4

      I think lieberals should all relocate to the various wonderful islam0nazi states that they all seem to have so much admiration for.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        ‘I think lieberals should all relocate to the various wonderful islam0nazi states that they all seem to have so much admiration for.”

        In the end you’ll always see that the left isn’t actually for anything real. They are against anything standing in the way of their Utopian dreams. That’s the USA and Israel. Israel is a strong testimony to all the things that they hate and it’s hard to paint a capitalist republic as archaic when the newest one proves to be so successful in every way other than global PR.

        Plus they’re Jews in the land of the Bible and the Bible is considered the root cause of everything standing in their way.

    • Gee

      Israeli conservatives make your liberals look conservative.

  • Raymond_in_DC

    “… And Prime Minister Netanyahu went along with it…”

    It’s not just Netanyahu. Israel has spent 20-odd years going along with bad policy just to avoid getting on the US’ bad side, going back to Baker’s threat to “reassess” the US relationship and his public offer of the White House phone number. Such appeasement has never worked. It’s only undermined Israel’s rights and interests, and made pressuring Israel the White House’ default option.

    Netanyahu however seems ever willing to abandon even long articulated principles if the right pressure is applied. It might come from left-wing editorial writers. Or from families pressing him to release prisoners. From European leaders he insists on calling “friends”. Or from US leaders who know they can play on the Israeli fear of being abandoned by the US and thrown to the wolves.

    This time he’s only made matters worse by getting pro-Israel but liberal-leaning groups in the US to line up behind Obama’s Syria policy. The *last* thing we need is to have Jewish groups seen as getting the US into a “war for Israel”.

    • EarlyBird

      Imagine the nerve of American presidents looking out for American interests before Israel’s!

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “Imagine the nerve of American presidents looking out for American interests before Israel’s!”
        It’s Carter’s fault for blackmailing them in to depending on US suport in exchange for “peace.” We have not dealt with them in good faith most of the time since then.

        We bullied them. It’s our fault.

        • EarlyBird

          Ah! Another lefty “Blame America” commie!

          Israel kind of got something for that “bullying,” wouldn’t you say? Like a commitment from Egypt not to be continually attacked, not to mention the $3 billion dollars in American tax payer money annually since ’79, and a US Middle East policy which has been fused at the hip with Tel Aviv?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Israel kind of got something for that “bullying,” wouldn’t you say? Like a commitment from Egypt not to be continually attacked, not to mention the $3 billion dollars in American tax payer money annually since ’79, and a US Middle East policy which has been fused at the hip with Tel Aviv?”

            I didn’t say they were enslaved. I said they were bullied. And if by “fused at the hip” you mean that Israel has to come begging to the USA every time it needs to defend itself, well that’s my point. It was not on balance good for them. They should have kept the Sinai.

            The cold war f-d Israel more than it helped them. Cold war appeasers totally f-ed Israel. We forced their dependence on us, now people like you complain and make “tail wagging the dog” accusations? It’s pathetic.

          • EarlyBird

            Israel needs our international support far more than the $3 billion we send them every year. We’re the only friend they have. You would call them “internationalists,” but Israelis would call themselves smart for wanting to have a strong friend in a dangerous world. And they’ve played us like a fiddle.

          • defcon 4

            They used to have civilised countries like Fwance, Czechoslovakia and Germany supporting them, but that was before they became beholden to the islam0nazi petroleum monopoly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Israel needs our international support far more than the $3 billion we send them every year.”

            Both situations are the fault of Carter’s initiatives, including the coerced treaties.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “We’re the only friend they have. You would call them “internationalists,” but Israelis would call themselves smart for wanting to have a strong friend in a dangerous world.”

            No, we’re the only friendly sovereign that should be strong enough to stand up to the OIC and OPEC, which means to the UN as well. Yet more than half of you side with OIC and OPEC at the UN. Nice. Amoral. Bordering on immoral. Often going way over the line of immorality. Not so nice after all.

          • EarlyBird

            If it wasn’t for the United States, Israel would have been torn apart decades ago. Period.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If it wasn’t for the United States, Israel would have been torn apart decades ago. Period.”

            Israel was stronger than ever before Carter got involved. He coerced them to enter treaties that were bad for them and in the process legitimized the delusion-based Israeli “peace” movement.

            It’s Carter’s fault that Israel can’t behave as you have personally suggested they should. What does that make you?

          • EarlyBird

            This is really getting weird.
            What don’t you get about this: the US and Israel have different interests in a lot of ways, including in regard to whether the US should strike Syria. You and I agree (for once) that the US shouldn’t because it would be counter-productive to our interests, but acknowledge that Israel wants us to anyway, because it would be good for theirs.
            I don’t expect any country, including Israel, to look out for any interests but their own. I’m not calling them bad guys. I’m just pointing out this fact. Why are you so defensive on behalf of Israel about this?
            Israel was “coerced”? Bought maybe, but not “coerced.”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “This is really getting weird.”

            Seek professional help.

            “What don’t you get about this: the US and Israel have different interests in a lot of ways, including in regard to whether the US should strike Syria.”

            One of the many reasons it’s “getting weird” is that you can’t even comprehend that I never claimed otherwise. You get confused because you want to break down the discourse in to incoherent dichotomies and use those (incoherent) “conclusions” to attack people that hurt your feelings or make you cry for whatever reason.

            “You and I agree (for once) that the US shouldn’t because it would be counter-productive to our interests, but acknowledge that Israel wants us to anyway, because it would be good for theirs.”

            And so? Why is that confusing to you? Am I Russian now because I think we lucked out that Russia stopped 0′Bama? Am I anti-Israel because I’m sitting far enough away to hope they can find a better way? I am fully aware that they might be right and I might be wrong. Furthermore, THEY are the only ones that can make the difference and turn a Syrian attack by us in to a win for us, unless WE include Iran. It HAS TO BE a win vis-a-vis stopping Iranian nukes. With 0′Bama’s Sunni-directed planning, you end up with a Sunni regional caliph and a nuclear armed Iran.

            Can’t you understand that? I don’t mind if you can’t. But admit that it’s over your head and stop being so pompous. Pompous fools are just a waste of time. Well, there is the comic relief but we already have plenty of that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m not calling them bad guys. I’m just pointing out this fact. Why are you so defensive on behalf of Israel about this? What are you even arguing about?”

            Because you constantly argue against valid cases for US Israeli synergy. They are by far our most important ally today. If the UK goes against us, we can play them off against the French or even the Germans. If We F Israel, there are no other alternatives. All we hear from you is “F Israel” in various alternative wordings. Japan could be a comparable in terms of importance but Japan is not constantly under attack by religious totalitarians. And even if they were, Japan is not the only game in town for us, just our best.

            Israel is unique and crucial to our interests. We don’t have a backup plan in the region other than WW3.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What are you even arguing about?”

            I’ve already explained recently and many many times in the past. Reread the thread when you get confused and ask more specific questions. I’m not your tour guide or your mommy.

          • EarlyBird

            I.e., you are embarrassed.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You would call them “internationalists,” but Israelis would call themselves smart for wanting to have a strong friend in a dangerous world.”

            Huh? I object to *American* internationalists. For most non-Americans, wanting strong international government of some kind is better than what they get. Our job as Americans is to show them a better way.

            American internationalists have ZERO excuses. They’re deranged traitors.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh I keep forgetting: international treaties, diplomacy, cooperative agreements, bans on WMD, etc., are all obstacles to “justice,” by which you mean the US being able to do anything it wants anywhere because we’re pure and exceptional. Unless, of course, when there is a Democrat in the White House.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Oh I keep forgetting: international treaties, diplomacy, cooperative agreements, bans on WMD, etc., are all obstacles to “justice,” by which you mean the US being able to do anything it wants anywhere because we’re pure and exceptional.”

            Yes they often are if we think they stand above us. Yes, we are exceptional. One does not have to be “pure” to be exceptional or even “the best.”

            Thank God we’ve never had to depend on your kind of “leadership.” Other than when modern Democrats have occupied the Whitehouse…

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The jihad the Islamic totalitarian world is waging against the Jewish infidels in Israel is but just one small jihad in the much larger jihad it is waging against all religions and all infidels around the world. If Syria comprised the entire Islamic totalitarian world, then bombing Syria into oblivion would have a beneficial effect. However, Syria is only one tiny inconsequential cog of the greater Islamic totalitarian world and a pinprick bombing routine would not only be a complete and utter waste of time, money, and energy, it would be an utter embarrassment to us as well.

    Nevertheless, both sides of this jihad in Syria are our enemies and when our enemies are doing us a great big favor by fighting and killing one another, the last thing we should ever do is intervene.

    Furthermore, there is no moral equivalence between the Western World and the Islamic Totalitarian World, as there is no freedom of conscience allowed in Islamic totalitarian society and as a result all Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, and if they are jihadists in one form or another, that means that they are our eternal enemy, because the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law. Therefore, when Muslims use chemical weapons to kill each other, so much the better. It is only when they start using them against non-Muslim infidels where I draw the line. However, that is not the case in Syria, as the Muslims are using chemical weapons on one another. Hence, let us sit back and enjoy the action like a good boxing match.

  • motherofbeaver

    Why would anyone imagine that this administration would act to help Israel? And I am fearful that Netanyahu does not have the character or the backbone to get from under the yoke of the present commander-in-chief and do what has to be done to save Israel.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    There is only one solution to all our woes in the Middle East and, indeed, the entire Islamic totalitarian world. That is to outlaw Islam throughout the West, then ban and reverse mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, since the truth is mass Muslim immigration to the West is really stealth and deceptive non-violent jihad for the devious purpose of demographic conquest.

    At the same time, we must eradicate the ruling Mullahs of Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Followed by forcing the Pakistanis to give up their massive nuclear weapons arsenal while also at the same time forcing them to destroy their nuclear weapons industry as well. Then the Islamic world must be abandoned and put into isolation.

    In any event, if the world finds that it must have access to the Middle East oil resources, then so be it, as it must also be taken away from them as well, since they will only use the proceeds it generates to wage jihad.

    With respect to Israel, which lies in the heart of the Islamic totalitarian world, it must be made crystal clear that an attack of any kind on Israel no matter how small and inconsequential will result in very devastating consequences to the Islamic totalitarian world, like nuking the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina, and we must remain steadfast and prepared to accomplish such a devastating attack if we must.

    In any event, because Islamic society is extremely totalitarian, it is incapable of producing anything on its own other than violence and ignorance. Hence, it will be only a matter of a few generations before crushing abject poverty ends up discrediting Islam once and for all.

    • defcon 4

      But nothing seems to discredit islam — because the mullahs, ayatollahs, imams etc. always have the najjis kuffar as their scapegoat. It’s always the Jews, the Christians, the Hindus who are destroying the purity of islamic “civilisation”.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        The only thing that will destroy Islam is abandonment, followed by isolation, then a few decades of hopeless and crushing abject poverty, since Islamic society is extremely totalitarian it is incapable of producing anything on its own other than violence and ignorance. For instance, without the West to lean on, the Islamic world can’t even produce one drop of oil, much less be capable of feeding itself.

        • defcon 4

          I think the only thing that will stop islam0nazism is a world war. They aren’t giving up and they aren’t going away and they’re not going to stop killing the unbeliever.

          • EarlyBird

            Two psychotic idiots, talking to each other.

          • defcon 4

            Aw gee, but the ongoing slaughter, enslavement and persecution of the najjis kaffir throughout the muslime world doesn’t upset you in the slightest does it Mehmet?

  • Gamal

    There are reports that Russia is giving Syria S300s. If the U.S. wasn’t there Israel could take those out. With the U.S waiting for Russia to help convince Syria to give up its chemical weapons you can bet that the last thing Obama will want is Israel to antagonize Russia by taking out the S300s. Once Syria has S300s it will have no incentive at all to give up its chemical weapons.

  • UCSPanther

    Unfortunately, AIPAC has been pushing for Syrian intervention, but it is important to note that AIPAC doesn’t always have the best interests of Israel at heart…

  • TRAV1S

    Very good points. If Assad falls then every jihadis will move into Jordan to destabilise it. Just in the same way that after Libya fell the jihadis moved onto Syria.

  • EarlyBird

    Does Danny “Good Jewish Boy” Greenfield know that he’s entirely at odds with Netanyahu and the Israel Firsters in AIPAC and ADL? As I write, they are ferociously lobbying American politicians to strike Syria, and are very sorry to see that Russia has come up with a plan which would delay those strikes.

    Most certainly, Hezbollah will respond by launching barrages of un-guided rockets into Israel, 98.9% of which would do zero damage to Israelis. I would not want to be in that situation, but it’s nothing Israelis can’t handle and haven’t dealt with beautifully before.

    Why would Israel want to open itself to these attacks?

    Because, a.) it gives them legitimate reason (as if they don’t already have one) to bomb the hell out of Syria and Hezbollah and degrade their abilities to continue to attack Israel;

    b.) Which may get Hamas into the act, giving the IDF another target rich environment, human shields or not. (Bulls**t alert: “…will hide behind a civilian population of human shields forcing Israel to play the same defeatist humanitarian games to minimize civilian casualties as in Gaza.” Yeah right, Danny. AS IF Israel pulls its punches for fear of international scorn. That’s so ’80s.)

    But most importantly, the US acting to stop Syrian use of chemical weapons makes it much harder politically for a president – any president – to not use military force against Iran for developing nukes. And THAT is the absolute mission of Israel at this time. Period.

    Here’s some light reading for anyone interested in the truth rather than Danny’s pernicious propaganda:

    http://www.jpost.com/Internati

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/di

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World

    http://www.theatlantic.com/int

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09

  • Samir J.

    WHo the heck cares about Israel? Why can’t the US ever do what’s in the best interest of the US, which is almost always contrary to Zionist interests? Wow this website is infested with jewish traitors. Go over to Tel Aviv where your loyalties lie and stay the heck out of Palestine!

    • iluvisrael

      It’s ISRAEL now accchhhhhhmed, get over it. The invented paleostonians should kiss Israeli soil. Israel won that territory in wars she did not start. I guess it;s too much for an inbred like you to know history.

      • Samir J.

        That’s a lie, jewboy. Israel started the 1967 war, and everyone knows it. They fired the first shots. You people are obnoxious. The invented Khazar jews should kiss my @ss.

        • defcon 4

          LOL, we already know from historical records that the musl0-nazis planned to invade Israel in ’67′ and ’73′ and ’48′. After all, musl0-nazi leaders couldn’t stop ranting and raving about it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “After all, musl0-nazi leaders couldn’t stop ranting and raving about it.”

            On radio, in Hebrew…addressing the Jews they were threatening. And additionally acting on the threats with “peace agreement” breaking troop movements and a port siege.

        • iluvisrael

          Go take a loose dump in your koran muzzball

        • Drakken

          What is funny as he77 is that you scuzlims lost every war that started, so Happy Nakba Haji, more to come.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “That’s a lie, jewboy. Israel started the 1967 war, and everyone knows it. They fired the first shots. You people are obnoxious. The invented Khazar jews should kiss my @ss.’

          There’s an old story about a couple of kids sitting around and the little one runs off to the parents claiming that the big one started a fight.

          How did that happen? “All I did was hit him and then he started a big fight.”

          All the jihadis did was start a war and then Israel struck first. Interesting chronology. Very flexible use of that whole time continuum thing.

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    If bombing Syria will help Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the MB; their victory certainly won’t help Israel–or the United States. And bombing Syria might cause their retaliation against Israel; in which case Israel will be fighting a two-front war, and possibly a three-front war. In such a scenario, would they be able to strike Iran?

    • EarlyBird

      Israel disagrees with you, sir.

      • defcon 4

        Gee, are you speaking for Israel now Mehmet?

  • TheOrdinaryMan

    …but what I can’t understand is why American Jewish organizations keep falling for the humanitarian angle(Assad is gassing his own people), and support US intervention. Do they think that children being gassed is the only consideration?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “…but what I can’t understand is why American Jewish organizations keep falling for the humanitarian angle(Assad is gassing his own people), and support US intervention. Do they think that children being gassed is the only consideration?”

      Leftists are conditioned to support anything that takes them closer to an international socialist sovereign. It’s essential for building Heaven here on Earth.

  • Jeff Ludwig

    Very logical article I think. See my op-ed piece in IsraelNationalNews.com, Sept. 8, 2013 for a related item, although my article is not as detailed in terms of Arab politics as Mr. Greenfield’s. Thanks to DG for illuminating many issues that are not patent to the West and not be illuminated by main stream reporting.

  • defcon 4

    Israel pulled its punches in both the invasion of Lebanon and Gaza. I think Gaza should’ve been flattened, after all, it’s your psychopathic muslime brethren who are always attacking first.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Disagreement with you is de facto “pernicious propaganda.”

  • James Labu

    IT,S SYRIAN WAR

    IT,S SYRIAN REBELS & THE ASSAD GOVT

    THAT SHOULD SIT ON THE TABLE FOR PEACE

    NOT OBAMA SELFISH DEMAND & INTEREST

    US INTEREST DISREGARDS HUMAN LIFE

    DESTRUCTION OF A NATIONS

    AND THEY PUT THE BLAMES ON OTHERS

    US DOING IS THE ROOTS OF ALL EVILS

    THAT PUT THE WORLD TO UNREST

    THEIR LIES KILLED & DESTRUCT

    ONCE A LIAR ALWAYS A LIAR