WarSclerotic

Experts and pundits alike agree that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s fate has been sealed. He will not be able to stay in power. His rule will ultimately come to an end in one fell swoop when a bodyguard or a sniper fires a bullet, or perhaps as a result of an improvised explosive device; he may get lucky and see his country split, in which case he could become the head of an Alawite state in the north.

Meanwhile, fighting has not let up; and as it encroaches upon the Israeli Golan Heights, stray bullets and ricochets from shells have hit Israeli sites. These incidents have been accidental; it is unclear whether they have originated from the Syrian army or rebels. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded with moderation and proportionality, during the previous government’s tenure and during his current premiership. Last week Israel fired a Spike NLOS missile on a Syrian position. The fact that Israel chose this highly accurate weapon to retaliate for Syrian fire makes it clear it does not seek an escalation.

Restraint must be the overarching principle that guides the Israel Defense Forces. Iran wants to see Israel get bogged down in Syria. Israel must not take that bait, although it might find itself doing just that, as such situations can sometimes take on a life of their own. Inaccurate shelling that would result in large-scale collateral damage could make Israel go down the path of tit-for-tat skirmishes, a battle it has no interest in. The term forbearance — the policy of restraint that was pursued by the Jewish population during the Arab attacks in the 1930s — should not be frowned upon, particularly because the fire from Syria is accidental (for now), unlike the malicious attacks from the Gaza Strip.

All through the fighting, Israel has maintained that the transfer of certain game-changing weapons from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon would cross a red line; according to foreign media, it thwarted an attempted transport in a small-footprint operation, which was the right thing to do.

The U.S., however, has set a different red line; its focus is on the large chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria. Use of such arms will have crossed this red line. When traces of chemical weapons were reportedly found in the battlefield, the U.S. turned a blind eye; it was the easy way out, because the information came in late, and the attack — possibly involving chemical grenades — could have been perpetrated, in theory at least, by the rebels, although the likelihood of that was almost nonexistent.

Another report talked about aircraft using chemical weapons; this time it was the Assad regime that was faulted. On the one hand, this reflects just how desperate the Syrian president is — he had to breach his chemical weapon stockpiles to mount an assault on Aleppo; but on the other hand, the silence coming out of Washington — it has said it was looking into the matter to determine the identity of the culprit as if this was somehow unclear — has eroded the U.S.’s standing in the region.

This could make the regional and Syrian power brokers conclude that the U.S. is poised to renege on other promises as well. Such a conclusion could have disastrous consequences. Washington would do itself a favor by asking itself why the relatively weak forces taking part in the Syrian civil war have allowed themselves to ignore, and even openly flout, the United States.