WarSclerotic

All the world’s a stage and all the politicians are merely players. Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani are taunting the West and warning Israel with their threats.

These threats should not be taken lightly. Saddam Hussein threatened to set half of Israel on fire and launched 40 missiles at us. There was considerable panic, but little damage, and Hussein was dealt a gut punch. If U.S. President Barack Obama acts now like then-President George H. W. Bush did during the First Gulf War in 1991, Syria will receive a similar blow. Although this time, Israel has not committed itself to remaining on the sidelines if attacked.

Israel is not part of the Syrian conflict. It does not intend to become involved. Israel seeks to remain outside the picture. It is Islamic anti-Semitism that causes Arab leaders to threaten Israel. Israel is right to avoid a military initiative while at the same time emphasizing its right to defend itself. Iran and Syria are aware both of Israel’s tremendous capabilities and the fact that it is not a signatory to any treaties that would restrict it from making use of them.

In the meantime, Obama is like a borrower taking loans without caring about the diplomatic interest rate. Instead of restoring American credibility, that credibility is eroding with each passing day. British intelligence even found justification for a military strike, but this didn’t help Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative government in London. Contrary to popular opinion, any delay is negative at this point.

Russia, Iran and Syria, as well as America’s allies, see the U.S. stumbling around at a time that it has many options. On Thursday, in a paper published for the Institute for National Security Studies, former Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin and Avner Golov presented six military options that the U.S. has: supplying the rebels with more weapons and training, which so far has been conducted more in theory than in reality and “does not provide an appropriate response at this point”; a pinpoint “punitive” strike against the units that took part in last week’s chemical weapons attack; declaring no-fly and no-move zones, which would almost completely limit the movement of the Syrian military; creating demilitarized zones near the Turkish and Jordanian borders and humanitarian corridors; a prolonged aerial attack against operational assets; and seizing control of and destroying chemical weapons, a complex military operation that would include a risk that a small quantity of chemical weapons would fall into hostile hands.

But these options will not remain on the table forever. The longer Obama hesitates, the more the audacity of his opponents will increase. While the U.S. maintains a military advantage and building a political coalition is necessary, the timing of the attack is also important for the impression the U.S. will leave on the sons of darkness in the world.