WarSclerotic

To maintain credibility, Obama may feel he must strike Syria | The Times of Israel.

Assad regime has made preparations to sustain a US attack, even as it continues to pound rebel positions

The White House is seen in Washington, DC, on Friday, as discussions continue regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons. (photo credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Over the past 24 hours, Syria has been portraying a “business as usual” attitude. Occasionally, a low-ranking Syrian official may utter a meaningless statement — in Syria, even the prime minister is not part of the decision-making circle — regarding the country’s intention to strike “the Zionists” in case of an attack on the “motherland,” but in actuality, there are no substantive preparations for war against Israel.

Somewhat surprisingly, there is also no indication of any ruptures among the Syrian leadership. No demand to replace Bashar Assad has yet been aired. Defying him plainly remains out of the question.

Preparations have been made, however, for absorbing a severe military blow by the American army. The Syrian army has seen an extensive mobilization of troops and arms in recent days; the evacuation of headquarters, guard positions and missile bases; and the scattering of critical weapons systems, such as Scud missile and missile launchers, throughout the country.

The bloody routine in Syria continues as well, in the form of attacks on opposition positions in Damascus, Daraa, Homs and elsewhere. On Friday morning, a Syrian military airstrike left dozens of people dead.

The Syrian Air Force constitutes the regime’s most significant advantage against the opposition. Therefore, the assumption among Israeli officials is that Assad will be wary of a confrontation with the IDF — a step which would essentially result in the loss of his air force. Assad is not keen on suicide, as he has demonstrated more than once over the past two and a half years.

It should be noted that Israeli intelligence in the last decade has been very effective with regard to Syria. And up until now, at least on the Israeli side, there is no indication that Assad plans to attack Israeli targets in the event of an American assault. (As for Hezbollah, the likelihood of the terror group attacking Israel is very low as well, due to the fact that any such act would not be currently beneficial to the group’s Tehrani masters.)

Much depends on the work of the UN inspectors who crossed the border from Syria into Lebanon on Friday afternoon, a day earlier than planned. The inspectors are expected to determine whether or not a chemical attack took place on August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus.

If the inspectors do not provide overwhelming evidence of Syrian government involvement in the chemical attack, if they have no “smoking gun,” then there can be no certainty of an international coalition coming together alongside the US to attack Assad.

Without such a coalition, the pressure on Obama not to attack would only increase. If Obama chooses to lead a military adventure into Syria without conclusive proof and without international backing, he will be harshly criticized (especially in the liberal circles that elected him) for dragging the US into yet another unnecessary war. But if Obama ignores this 13th alleged chemical attack by the Syrian regime against civilians since his famous “red line” speech last year, his credibility will be further  diminished throughout the Middle East, and especially in Iran.

For now, it seems that Obama would rather attack Syria and absorb the criticism at home. The alternative would mean the abandonment of the Syrian people. And it would send a message to Iran that it can seek and acquire a nuclear bomb.

▶ John Kerry Syria FULL Speech 8/30/2013. Kerry Makes Case For Syria Military Action – YouTube.

UN denies inspectors left Syria early amid fears of US strike | The Times of Israel.

Obama convenes high-level meeting to discuss plans for possible military action; release of intelligence report to follow

UN inspectors being escorted this week by Syrian rebels in Damascus (photo credit: AP/United media office of Arbeen)

A UN spokesman denied reports on Friday that UN inspectors, who were looking into claims of alleged chemical attacks in Syria, had crossed over the border to Lebanon a daily earlier than expected.

“The team of experts has completed collecting evidence and testimony and is currently packing,” said Martin Nesirky. “The team will leave Damascus and Syria tomorrow (Saturday).”

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Friday that his government would not accept any preliminary or “partial findings” from the UN team. CNN reported later in the day that the inspectors would only release a final report.

US President Barack Obama is meeting with senior national security advisers at the White House to discuss plans for possible military action against Syria.

The meeting should be followed by the public release of a report on intelligence the US has gathered about last week’s deadly chemical weapons attack in Syria.

Obama says the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad perpetrated the attack. But he has yet to present definitive evidence to back up the assertion.

Secretary of State John Kerry will speak about the intelligence report and the broader situation in Syria on Friday.

Obama may also speak about Syria during the public portion of a White House meeting with Baltic leaders.

Report: UN inspectors left Syria – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Lebanese media reports UN team probing chemical arms use in Syria en route to Beirut airport after completing mission. But other reports say departure tomorrow

Roi Kais

Lebanese media reported the UN inspectors, which investigated the use of chemical weapons in Syria, are on their way to the Beirut International Airport.

According to the reports, the inspectors will leave the area without giving any announcements. The Lebanese news website a-Nashra reported the inspectors reached the Syria-Lebanon border a short while ago after completing their mission.

However, the Al-Arabiya network reported that the inspectors were supposed to leave on Saturday.

Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama consulted Friday morning with his national security team on the Syrian issue, a senior administration member told AFP.

Later this evening State Secretary John Kerry is expected to give an announcement, most likely to include some details from the intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

At the same time as Kerry’s announcement, the Syrian issue will be discussed also in UN Chief Ban Ki-moon’s meeting with representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Earlier, US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro said that “There’s no doubt that chemical weapons were used. Any careful review of the facts leads to the conclusion that the regime was behind this.”

According to him, “the ongoing deliberations in Washington are not around the question of whether chemical weapons were used or whether the regime was responsible. The deliberations are about what the appropriate response will be and there will be a response.”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States will continue to seek out an international coalition to act together on Syria, after Britain’s parliament rejected military action.

“It is the goal of President (Barack) Obama and our government … whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort,” Hagel said

British Prime Minister David Cameron said on Friday he regretted the failure of the British parliament to support military action in Syria but that he hoped President Obama would understand the need to listen to the wishes of the people.

“I think the American public, the American people and President Obama will understand,” Cameron said. “I haven’t spoken to him (Obama) since the debate and the vote but I would expect to speak to him over the next day or so. I don’t think it’s a question of having to apologies,” he added.

At the same time, residents from around Aleppo in northern Syria, suffering from burns caused by an incendiary bomb similar to napalm, were shown in a BBC network broadcast.

According to the report, the school bombing killed 10 people and injured many more.

Column One: Obama’s bread and circuses | JPost | Israel News.

Over the past week, President Barack Obama and his senior advisers have told us that the US is poised to go to war against Syria.

France Backs US Intervention in Syria – Global Agenda – News – Israel National News.

UN Chemical weapons experts inspecting site of attack in Syria

Reuters

French President Francois Hollande gave a boost Friday to US hopes of forging an international coalition for possible strikes against Syria after British lawmakers rejected any involvement in military action.

The White House had signalled Thursday that President Barack Obama, guided by the “best interests” of the United States, was ready to go it alone on Syria after deadly chemical weapons attacks last week. But Russia, the Syrian regime’s most powerful ally, warned any military strikes would “deal a serious blow to the entire system of world order”.

UN arms experts began a final day of inspections of the sites of the suspected gas attacks before they leave the war-battered country on Saturday to report their findings to UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

Faced with an impasse at the UN Security Council and the British parliament’s shock rejection of any punitive action against the Syrian regime, the United States has been forced to look elsewhere for international partners.

While Germany and Canada ruled out joining any military strikes, Hollande – whose country was a strident opponent of the war on Iraq, but which under Hollande embarked on a military intervention of its own in worn-torn Mali – said the British vote would not affect his government’s stance.

“France wants firm and proportionate action against the Damascus regime,” Hollande said in an interview with Le Monde newspaper, hinting an attack was possible by Wednesday.

“We are continuing to consult with the British as with all of our allies. That consultation includes ways forward together on a response to this chemical weapons attack in Syria,” he said in the Philippines.

The British rejection also came after the failure of an 11th-hour effort by British diplomats to win UN backing for action against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime at a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council.

“It is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly,” Cameron said.

His government was defeated by just 13 votes in its bid for a “strong humanitarian response” to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people in the August 21 attacks.

Key Syrian allies Russia and Iran have warned against any Western intervention, saying it risked sparking a wider conflict in the already volatile Middle East.

But the military buildup was continuing in the region regardless, while in Damascus the mood was heavy with fear as security forces make preparations for possible air bombardments.

US National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said Obama’s decision-making “will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.

“He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable,” she said.

Earlier in the week, reports had suggested a Western strike was imminent, but questions have been raised about the quality of the intelligence linking Assad to the gas attack.

“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security. We must be clear that the United States rejects the use of chemical weapons by Assad or any other regime,” said Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader in the House.

Assad’s ally and main arms supplier Russia has blocked all attempts to toughen sanctions against Damascus or authorise outside force to punish or unseat the regime.

Deputy Russian Prime Minister Gennady Gatilov said Friday his government opposes any resolution “indicating the probability of the use of force” or “that could be used for military action against Syria”.

Syria is in the 29th month of a vicious civil war in which more than 100,000 people have died and about three million more have become refugees or displaced, according to UN figures.

As the stand-off continued, the team of UN inspectors were in the final day of their investigations into the gas attacks that activists say killed more than 350 people, including women and children.

A UN spokesman said Thursday that the team had collected “considerable” evidence and will brief the UN secretary general soon after they leave Syria on Saturday.

Ban has appealed for the inspectors to be allowed to complete their work before the major powers decide any follow-up action.

Assad, whose regime strongly denies using chemical weapons and instead blames “terrorist” rebels, has remained defiant in the face of the threats.

Meanwhile, responding to threats by Syrian officials that the regime or its proxies will retaliate to a western attack by striking Israel, the Iron Dome missile defense system was deployed in Tel Aviv on Friday, as part of a wide range of security preparations, according to reports.

Making things worse | Jerusalem Post – Blogs.

Ira Scharansky

This is the season when Israelis combine a wish for a good year along with their conventional greetings at work, on the street, or over the telephone.

This year it is also an occasion for asking if there will be another war.

The answer is almost certainly yes, with the next question being “where?”

Which means, is the impending American attack on Syria something we have to worry about.

Most likely. If not in the short run–assuming that Assad is worried what the IDF might do in response to anything more than a symbolic missile or mortar aimed where it would not do any damage–than more certainly in the long run.

Politicians and military officers are saying that it is unlikely that Assad will risk a serious strike against Israel. However, there have been more anti-missile batteries positioned in the north, a limited call-up of reservists, and a greatly expanded delivery of gas and atropine kits to those still without them. We hear that fighter bombers are patrolling along the northern borders, and sitting in their hangars fully armed.

What we know to date gives us worry that the American strike will be the most thoroughly planned failure in the recent history of warfare. And that Israelis will pay more than their share for Americans violation of that first commandment of public policy–Don’t make things worse.

Reports are that the President made more than 80 telephone calls to foreign heads of state in the days prior to the American attack.

That sounds like he learned his lessons well as a political organizer in Chicago–i.e., it helps to cover one’s bases, firm up support, answer reservations.

Pity that he didn’t learn a bit more basic wisdom on his rapid climb to the presidency. For example, that people attacked tend to fight back; that chains of events coming out of violence are difficult to predict and control; and that a bad but powerful regime may be better than chaos in a country like Syria, especially when religious fanaticism is driving the chaos.

If what we are told to expect proves true, we can expect two or three days of missile and air bombardment beginning Thursday night. We hear that the object is not to destroy Assad, but to punish him for violating the moral standards of Barack Obama and John Kerry.

According to Syrian sources, Assad’s army is sending its personnel and equipment away from places likely to be hit by the Americans.

Does this Commander-in-Chief want a war in which no one is hurt?

That may play well with supporters who think of themselves as politically correct humanists, but the rest of us have some doubts.

Among the scenarios that it is reasonable to predict is that Assad will be weakened, to the benefit of whoever is opposing him.

The latter is the heart of things being made worse.

We’ve already seen one small example of who will win. The Sunni who executed three truck drivers because they were Alewi. The Arabic speaking Israeli journalist who presented the clip perceived from the killer’s accent that he was not Syrian, most likely Chechnyan or from somewhere else in Central Asia. In other words, he is one of the many Jihadists–perhaps al Quaida or some other movement hardly more inclined to enlightened values–attracted to another war for the sake of Allah.

With Assad weakened, we can expect a continuation of civil war with various groups of Jihadists fighting one another when they are not busy ethnically cleansing Alewis, Kurds, Christians, Shiites, and whoever else in the Syrian mosaic does not fit in their view of the future.

In their preoccupation with 1300 deaths from chemical weapons, the American President and Secretary of State have overlooked or dismissed a more attractive possibility, i.e., the cooperation with Russia in an alliance against radical Islam.

The prospect appears bizarre against the reheating Cold War and Russia’s cooperation with Hezbollah and Iran. However, at least part of the latter is Russia’s concern to limit Iran’s influence on its own southern borders in Central Asia. Cooperation with Russia may not play well in Washington, but it sounds better to those concerned that radical Islam is the most serious problem facing the world.

Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister put it as well as anyone, when he tweeted that “the West is playing with the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade“.

The Arab League has not helped Washington’s concern to bolster its moral posturing with international support. Even though the organization earlier expelled Syria and holds Syria responsible for the chemical attack, it opposes a US led attack at this point.

Involved in that reservation is a host of rivalries among Arab countries and concern about an additional American intervention in its region.

A New York Times analysis summarizes Obama’s problem.

“With the specter of faulty intelligence assessments before the Iraq war still hanging over US decision making, and with opinion polls showing that only a small fraction of the US public supports military intervention in Syria, some officials in Washington realize that there needs to be a public presentation making the case for war.
A statement by the Arab League on Tuesday added to the uncertainty, underscoring the complexity of the regional landscape, where years of turmoil have set off fierce sectarian fighting and a tidal wave of refugees and left many fearful that a US strike would further inflame tensions.”

Barack Obama has included in his pre-war comments the pledge that there will be no American “boots on the ground.”

If those Jihadists get their hands on Assad’s chemical weapons and means of delivery, all bets should be forgotten as American troops look for their boots.

Obama has postured himself as sensitive to Muslim concerns. The Arab League’s reservations may postpone or even derail what appeared to be a done deal.

The UK has not only moved planes to Cyprus. It has also prepared a resolution for the UN Security Council “authorising necessary measures to protect civilians” in Syria. Why seek a justification likely to be shot down by Russian and Chinese vetos?

I’ll close with a Shana tova, and the hope that my dark mood is misplaced.

The world remains silent | JPost | Israel News.

“In the end, all we have are ourselves and our defense forces to keep us safe.”

Once a year, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, we recall the Holocaust in which so many European Jews lost their lives.

Once a year, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, we recall the Holocaust in which so many European Jews lost their lives. A large number of us have family members and friends who perished during those years. We use slogans such as “Never Again!” We’ve convinced ourselves that our new enlightened world would never allow another holocaust to take place. But we tend to forget that the world is not actually enlightened and that it actually does allow such events to occur. All we need to do is look around at what’s happening right now.

World War II began in 1939.

The Western world watched from the sidelines as Britain stood alone against the Axis powers until 1941.

Almost all of Europe had been conquered and thousands of Jews were being sent to their deaths. Even after the Americans were well aware that millions of European Jews were being systematically murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau and other camps, they did nothing.

Only in 1941 did the US begin supporting Britain sending military equipment. It was only after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, that the US decided to enter the war. The Allies succeeded in striking back only in the middle of 1943 and the Germans finally surrendered only in May 1945. It took six years for the world, and especially the Americans, to wake up and come to its senses.

By then, the world had six million fewer Jews; three million fewer Russian soldiers who were murdered in captivity; three million fewer non-Jewish Polish intellectuals; 300,000 fewer sick and disabled; 800,000 fewer Roma (Gypsies); and 25,000 fewer homosexuals.

This totals about 13 million people who were slaughtered by the Nazis all over Europe and the world did nothing to prevent this from happening.

The Yugoslav Wars broke out in the early 1990s and were characterized by bitter ethnic conflict between six peoples living in the region. Between 1992 and 1995, 100,000 people were murdered as Serbia attempted to maintain control of Bosnia through the ethnic cleansing of Croats and Bosniaks.

About 1.5 million Bosnians in Yugoslavia became refugees. And the world remained silent.

In Bosnia, too, racist and effective propaganda was used to convince a nation to commit unimaginable crimes against another nation. In this case, Muslims fought against Croats. Educated citizens, the rich and intellectuals who opposed Serbian control were taken prisoner and sent to internment camps. Just as the Nazis had done, the Serbians loaded people into sealed train cars and deported them to remote areas where they were abused, raped and murdered.

And the world remained silent.

Here, too, the men were separated from the women, and made to stand beside pits which became mass graves when all of them were shot to death. And the world remained silent. Only in 1995 did US-led NATO forces attack Bosnia, eventually leading to an end of the massacres.

In 1999, another war broke out in Kosovo. The Serbians once again engaged in ethnic cleansing, but this time the world – including the US – woke up and prevented the war from turning into another bout of ethnic cleansing.

In March 2011, a rebel uprising began in Syria, part of what came to be known as the Arab Spring (but would have been more accurately called the Middle Eastern Winter.) Over the past two-and-a-half years, Bashar Assad’s regime has used tanks, artillery, missiles and aircraft to bomb civilian population centers. And it is now considered a fact that Assad recently used chemical weapons to carry out mass killings of his own people.

Since the onset of the conflict, more than 100,000 Syrians have died, tens of thousands have been injured and more than a million people (half of whom are children) are now living as refugees outside Syria. According to human rights workers inside Syria, at least 130,000 people have disappeared and thousands have been kidnapped. And the world remains silent. Pictures of the mass graves in which thousands of men, women and children lie have been exposed in the international media, and the world remains silent.

The Egyptian military has massacred thousands of its own people and the world remains silent. In the modern era of satellites and the Internet, everyone sees and knows everything, and the world remains silent. Even when the hallucinatory Turkish prime minister declared to the world that Israel was responsible for the revolution in Egypt, almost no one paid attention. Even when the Iranian president declares that the Zionist entity should be destroyed, the world remains silent.

Except for mumbling a few words here and there, no country has lifted a finger. The UN is useless, the US holds negotiations and summits dealing with truly “important” issues, such as the evacuation of Israeli settlements, and the Europeans are just hanging around waiting for someone to do something.

But don’t be mistaken. Neither is anyone going to support us when Israel once again becomes the victim. If at any time we cease to be an important strategic interest for the US, no one else would protect us from once again being led to the slaughter like sheep.

In the end, all we have are ourselves and our defense forces to keep us safe.

The writer is a former brigadiergeneral who served as a division head in the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).

IDF Restricts Airspace.

Or Heller

29/8/2013

IDF authorities decided to restrict the airspace over all of Israel’s northern region to civilian flights, in anticipation of the US attack in Syria. For the last two weeks, only flights by the Israeli aviation companies ‘Arkia’ and ‘Israir’ have been landing at and departing from the airport in Haifa.

Today (Thursday), owners of private aircraft parked at the northern airport were ordered to transfer their aircraft. So far, eight private aircraft have been transferred.

At the same time, IDF Northern Command HQ had all leaves and furloughs cancelled until Sunday.

Adrift: The United States and the Middle East | FrontPage Magazine.

( Bottom line: It’s up to our tiny country to save the West from itself. – JW )

John Bolton and Michael Ledeen presented a disturbing picture of Obama Administration national security policy adrift amidst a continually crisis-laden Middle East on August 28, 2013. 

In particular, these two leading foreign policy experts foresaw no truly effective international policy to stop Iranian nuclear weapons proliferation, leaving Israel to confront this existential danger unilaterally.

Bolton and Ledeen appeared at the briefing “Who is the Real Rouhani?” at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), described by its advisory board member Sarah Stern as “unabashedly pro-American and pro-Israeli,” sponsored the event.  Stern introduced Bolton and Ledeen by discussing how Hassan Rouhani had appeared to American media as a “great moderate” following his June 14, 2003, election to the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Yet Ledeen described the “big difference” between Rouhani and his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being “exactly the same as the difference between Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.”  In contrast to Ahmadinejad, Rouhani “is more charming,” his “face is prettier,” and “he knows the West” due to his Western education.  Such attributes, though, simply reminded Ledeen of how some Western observers had expectantly noted Yuri Andropov as a “jazz fan” after this KGB chief succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as the Soviet Union’s leader in 1982.  Rouhani’s exposure to the West, rather than moderating his views, seems to have instilled anti-Western vitriol in Rouhani, just as other Islamist leaders like the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) ideologue Sayyid Qutb “learned to hate America in America.”

Ledeen also rejected speculation of Rouhani being part of a “cunning scheme” to present an “apparent moderate.” Ledeen believed that Rouhani’s election was a “surprise” in an “honest vote” within the Iranian theocracy.  Here again the difference between Rouhani’s “moderation” and Ahmadinejad was minimal, for the latter could also “buy endless time” in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

In such dictatorships “you are dealing with a regime” that has “core policies,” Ledeen argued.  “It doesn’t matter who the person is.” Rouhani, moreover, has personally been “fully committed…fully engaged” during his career in Iran’s terrorism and nuclear programs, central concerns for the international community. Citing the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, Ledeen considered a dictatorship’s domestic behavior indicative of foreign policy.  “The way they treat their own people is the way they want to treat us.”

Bolton as well saw no moderation in Rouhani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator during 2003-2005.  This background meant that “Rouhani could not be a better public face” for Iran now.  Reflecting upon his negotiating experience, Rouhani had subsequently often “boasted” of his success in shielding Iran’s nuclear program from interference.

Bolton attributed the origins of these negotiations to a European desire in 2003 for “showing up the United States”  after its Iraq invasion.  With the controversial Iraqi regime change as a backdrop, “we suave and sophisticated Europeans” sought to tame the Iranian nuclear program.  The European concept then was a “macro-solution” following an Iranian enrichment freeze and today “they are still pursuing the same elusive goal.”

Iranian stalling tactics in the following negotiations recognized, Bolton observed that weapons proliferators “need time and they need legitimacy.”  Iran, moreover, was “scared to death” after American invasions not only in Iraq but Afghanistan as well brought American troops to Iranian borders on opposing sides.  Thus Iran has had no hesitation in suspending enrichment in the past, especially when temporary technical difficulties made the issue moot.  Looking to the future, Bolton considered it “clear beyond dispute that the Europeans are getting ready to be suckered again.”

Bolton predicted that the Iranians would make diplomatic overtures to the American diplomats as well.  Iranian officials would claim that their nuclear program was peaceful and transparent, while sanctions hurt the Iranian people.  In response, American officials might well offer phased plans of reciprocal Iranian-international actions.  “When you hear sequencing” from diplomats, Bolton warned, “you know they are talking about surrender.”  With sanctions “once dialed back,” it will be “almost impossible to torque them back up again.”  “What we don’t know cannot be good news,” Bolton meanwhile speculated about the progress of the Iranian nuclear program in light of past intelligence failures in Iraq.

In contrast to the Iranian regime, Ledeen believed that the Iranian people sought to emulate the Egyptian overthrow of the MB.  Ledeen attributed to Iranian opposition leaders under house arrest a “huge following” such that the regime dared not execute them.  Additionally, the “Iranian opposition is fundamentally pro-Western and anti-Islamist.” Speaking of senior Iranian ayatollahs in opposition to the Iranian regime as well as Muslim opposition to the MB in Egypt, Ledeen also warned “don’t write off all Muslims” as allies against Islamism.  Ledeen lamented, however, that the United States had done nothing to foment this internal Iranian opposition, something not requiring American military force.  Yet “Iran is the key to international terror,” while Iraq in 2003 was only a secondary terrorism supporter.

“We would have to have an Iran policy,” Ledeen argued, for regime change in Syria, a country under “virtual Iranian control” in the guise of the Lebanese Hezbollah (“that’s Teheran”) and Iran’s Al-Quds Force.  The “road to Damascus starts in Teheran,” Ledeen said.  The “problem in Syria is Iran,” Bolton agreed; focusing on Syria was “defining the problem much too narrowly.”

In particular, if the Assad regime perpetrated the latest chemical attack in Syria, then Ledeen saw “no way that that happened at a minimum without Iranian approval.”  The Iranians might have even provided “know-how.”  Syria regime change would be a terrible Iranian loss, thus in their view “Assad must be preserved.”

Contemplating a pending strike in Syria under the Obama Administration, Bolton foresaw this involving “some number of cruise missiles used against some number of empty buildings.”  The response of the Assad regime and its Iranian supporters will be “that’s it” with no effect upon chemical weapon use.

For deterrence, by contrast, a response must be “absolutely punishing.”  Opposed to a Syrian intervention, Bolton nonetheless criticized British Prime Minister David Cameron’s suggestion of a “proportionate response” to the Syrian gas attack.  “Why respond proportionately?” Bolton asked.  “You have to act decisively,” Ledeen concurred, proportionate response is “for little countries.  Otherwise, why be a superpower.”

The “worst outcome is that we do something and it has no effect,” Ledeen worried, merely making a “moral demonstration.”  Bolton as well warned that an ineffective “tank-plinking kind of raid”  will have an “immeasurable effect” on American credibility.  President Barack Obama’s personal “credibility has already been shredded” by earlier chemical attacks in Syria following his ill-conceived “ad lib” of a chemical attacks “redline.” Ledeen assessed the Obama Administration as now “leading with the behind.”

With respect to the critical question of Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, Bolton thought that the “prospects are grim.”  The Iranians “are going to get nuclear weapons,” Bolton predicted, setting off Middle East regional proliferation as a result.  This is the most possible outcome “by a long shot.” Current sanctions against Iran merely “give the illusion of doing something” and thereby cover the reluctance of congressional leaders and the Obama Administration to intervene in Iran.  “The Iranians are convinced that they are dealing with an American administration that does not have the will to fight,” Ledeen likewise assessed.

In the end, the crisis of Iranian nuclear proliferation, “for well or ill…is going to be Israel’s to solve,” according to Bolton.  Bolton criticized the past Israeli “mistake” of having allowed the first operational nuclear reactor in a “hostile state” in Bushehr, Iran.  Now, though, he considered an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities the last viable nonproliferation option in the face of American inaction.

The “Israelis won’t talk to us about” an Iranian strike, Ledeen predicted.  “We’ll know about it when the attack begins,” Bolton seconded.  As with past Middle East nuclear dangers in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, the pair foresaw Israel decisively acting alone for its own freedom and survival. Yet the interests of a wider but more timid free world, however ungrateful, would also hang in the balance.