Last week, throngs of Israelis crowded a Jerusalem mall, shoving past one another to pick up government-subsidized gas masks. Their impatience was understandable. For days, American leaders had been openly contemplating a strike on Syrian defense capabilities, a move likely to provoke a swift retaliatory attack on Israeli soil. A chemical onslaught from the Assad regime seemed like a real possibility. The crowd was so unruly that the mall gave up on distributing the masks after a few hours.
Any other state so concerned for its citizens’ safety (and so vulnerably positioned, with Israel and Syria sharing nearly 50 miles of border) might try desperately to talk U.S. policymakers down from drastic action. Instead, Israel’s housing minister, Uri Ariel, went on the radio to egg President Obama on. His message was unequivocal: “[Assad] is a murderous coward. Take him out.”
On the surface, an American strike would seem to expose Israel to immense peril, with no real benefits. Why would Israelis offer to undergo such an incredible act of self-sacrifice?
It’s no sacrifice. All of the evidence indicates that it’s a careful bet. Netanyahu and company see the consequences of American actions in Syria as a small risk to undertake for what could prove a huge victory for Israel: bringing the U.S. one large leap closer to mounting a strike on Iran.
What makes this gamble possible is that Israelis are perfectly willing to hazard retaliation from Assad. Living in Israel has long meant being subject to constant threats. Settlers willingly endure attacks in order to build homes on the cliffs of East Jerusalem. Upon turning 18, a typical citizen serves at least two years in the Israeli army. There’s a pervasive expectation that every member of Israeli society will undertake some personal hazard for long-term security. Violence is never a cheery prospect, but when you live on contested territory, it comes with the terrain. A seasoned Israeli summarized it nicely for The Jerusalem Post after witnessing the gas mask clamor: “I’ve lived here since 1969, through at least a dozen wars, and I’m just pissed off that we have to deal with this again. Been there, done that.”
Risking retaliation is scary. For Israelis, the alternative—having to face a nuclear Iran without guaranteed U.S. support—may be scarier.
The Syria-Iran connection is not a hard one to see. Both are rogue states whose hostile weapons programs have threatened to destabilize the already-unhinged Middle East. The basic American reasons for striking Syria—to save innocent lives, to punish an oppressive leader for war crimes, to potentially oust a tyrannical regime—could certainly apply to a belligerent Iran as well.
Israel is eager to help Americans make connections between the two nations. Several top Israeli officials have openly tied the Syrian predicament to the Iranian threat. Most recently, Israeli President Shimon Peres offered an Israeli radio station his confidence that, just as “Obama will not allow nuclear weapons in Iran,” he will make the right call and strike Syria. AIPAC, the American pro-Israel lobby, is following suit. “As we witness unthinkable horror in Syria, the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is paramount,” surmised an editorial on the organization’s website, accompanied by a photo of Bashar al-Assad and Ayatollah Khamenei chatting casually.
American policymakers are also starting to conflate the two. “Iran is hoping you look the other way,” Kerry warned the Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday as they prepared to draft the resolution on a Syrian strike. Later in the day, everyone from Marco Rubio to Barbara Boxer to Chuck Hagel echoed his point.
Since Israel is the state most concerned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, that kind of rhetoric suggests we’re drifting toward Netanyahu’s best-case scenario—Congress justifying a strike on Syria based largely on the interests of Israel. Such a precedent could draw Israeli security as our new “red line,” requiring us to go after anybody who crossed it. To renege at that point would destroy our credibility beyond repair. Whenever Israel decided it was time to fire at Iran, we would be compelled to oblige.
President Obama seems to be speeding in that direction. Immediately after announcing that it would seek Congressional approval for the strike, the White House plainly presented the decision on Syria as a matter of Israeli security. Obama’s team knows that representatives on both sides of the aisle have professed their undying commitment to Israel’s safety. While using that commitment to sell the Syria intervention is clever political strategy, it could set a hazardous example.
Whether the U.S. should strike Syria is a tough choice, and whether to strike Iran may soon be another. But each needs decided on its own terms. Predicating the Syria decision on allegiance to Israel could establish a very dangerous precedent.
WarSclerotic 
September 6, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Very elegant intellectual exercise and, its larger part, pretty accurate.
What is missing is that Israel is ready to do what Israel has to do as soon as the American operation in Syria will start if – IF- Israel will be attacked.
September 6, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Just received this email from my Senator:
Dear Friend,
Many folks throughout Louisiana have reached out to me with concerns about the ongoing conflicts in Syria and whether the United States will get involved. Earlier this week I participated in a classified briefing as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, but I walked out of the briefing with the same concerns about the President’s plan that I had before I walked in.
After a lot of careful thought and prayer, I have decided that I will vote NO on the Syria war resolution when it comes before the United States Senate, likely next week.
As horrible as events in Syria are, they do not pose a direct threat to the United States or our allies. U.S. military action could spark a broader war, and it could potentially entangle us in Syria’s protracted civil war where elements of the opposition are even worse than the Assad regime — all while our troops are underfunded.
There is a very serious and direct threat to us in the region – Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. I am extremely concerned that getting involved in Syria, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would make mustering our resolve to stop a nuclear Iran impossible.
The conflict in Syria is ongoing, and there is still much cause for concern. If you have any additional thoughts on this or other issues important to you, please contact me at any of my state offices or in my Washington office. You can also reach me online at http://www.vitter.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
David Vitter Signature
David Vitter
United States Senator
September 6, 2013 at 9:47 PM
I just googled facts about David Vitter, your senator, Steve. He seems to be a constant – perseverant – guy in his activities, however there are some clouds there, too. The Internet Searching tools can be very nasty sometimes.
And now, lets be serious for a couple of minutes. Look Steve, all is nice and ok, everybody and we all have the right to our own opinions and ideas, let there be no doubt about that.
However, if 400 gassed children didn’t move the heart and conscience of certain people out there, then we have a big problem here, and exactly on that is Obama making his case now, which is, in my opinion an ironclad case against the non intervention position in Syria.
September 6, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Yes, but how many children will we kill when the bombing campaign starts. I’m sure there are a lot of good Syrians and their families who are trapped in their neighborhoods for fear of venturing out to safety.
September 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM
Obama got a diplomatic victory – in certain limits and harsh international conditions, after ten G20 nations joined US in blaming Assad.( Sky News Australia, 13 minutes ago)
”Ten members of the Group of 20 international economies have joined the United States in accusing the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad of carrying out a chemical weapons attack on civilians and have called for a strong international response.
The countries are Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
A joint statement by the ten countries and the United States stopped short of explicitly calling for military action against the Syrian government, as US President Barack Obama is advocating.”
September 6, 2013 at 10:47 PM
For those who are thinking that Putin is a responsible leader who will know how to navigate the world ship on the life ocean of events, think again:
”Diplomacy Putin style: Russian spokesman claims U.K. is ‘just a small island’ after president calls Kerry a liar”, from Bloomberg News
That fateful vote in the British parliament better never took place, but after such a blow, Cameron mission at G20 was not a simple one. To start with, he tried to demonstrate the relevancy of his country:
”He later listed British achievements, telling a press conference that “this is a country that cleared the European continent of fascism,” abolished the slave trade, and gave the world the musicians Edward Elgar and the Beatles.”, Bloomberg News.
However, he was more successful in our opinion after this statement:
”Britain may be a small island, but I would challenge anyone to find a country with a prouder history, a bigger heart or greater resilience,” according to the Press Association.
All those and more are concentrating the spotlight on some issues which are emphasizing one more time the character and the leadership of certain, very important international figures, who are playing important roles in shaping our life :
1. Putin is an hypocrite, a cynical and a manipulator man who thought he might take advantage of that sorry absurd theatre which was the British parliament this week, and so trying to minimalize the position and the importance of The Great Britain; only an idiot leader can do such a thing and think he will succeed.
2. The nobles of the soul that Cameroun demonstrated in very tough circumstances on G20 meetings, when he showed high spirit of patriotism, defending the country which didn’t defend him.
However, what happened in Britain – as a world power – should light a red torch for the others world powers to which the international relevance is important to them:
You cannot maintain the status of a world power after you have run from your responsibilities you have in that role exactly.
The British lessons – there were, in fact two lessons : presenting the case in front of an unprepared parliament and the painful defeat – were in Obama’s mind when he decided to take it to the congress.
He is preparing the congress and will do what it takes to win the congress approval.
September 6, 2013 at 11:14 PM
@ Luis: One of the biggest problems behind trying to sell this action to the American, besides the inevidable “mission creep”, is the “what about the children” meme; Americans have had that crap pulled on them, time and time again, by the Democrat party; almost every single piece of sh!t that they try to shove down our throats is always “for the children”, and, it seems, Americans may finally be getting sick of eating sh!t sandwiches; I guess you could call it “compassion fatigue”.
September 6, 2013 at 11:22 PM
20:35 GMT: US Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, an aide close to President Obama, told NPR Friday that military action in Syria is unlikely without congressional approval. Blinken asserted that “the president has the authority to act” if Congress votes down the proposal next week, but “it’s neither his desire nor intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him.”
September 6, 2013 at 11:32 PM
@ Luis: I forgot to mention, those tomahawk missiles, if they fly, will probably kill more children than the alleged Assad CW attack did; it won’t matter to the children whether it was Assad’s CW or US tomahawk missiles that killed them, they’ll be just as dead, either way.
September 6, 2013 at 11:41 PM
If we bomb anyone, how about Iran in 5 days, on say 9-11? Poetic justice.
September 7, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Ok so whats the chances of Obama backing down?
Im reading a lot about him backing down if congress votes no.
September 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM
Obama was looking for a way out while saving face. Face was all this was about and all anything will ever be for the Failure President.
Do not look for substance or integrity when it comes to Obama. He is niether.
September 7, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Ok, there is good people here and well intentioned who send the following message, more or less: ”we got those terrible pictures and agreed they are human incompatible, but starting a war of our own now, in Syria, will also kid children, women and men, because those tomahawks missiles and other bombs wont know to save life, they are taking it”. I perfectly agree. More death and more victims will be if any ”new” war will spark. But consider this:
” The Bombing of Dresden was an attack on the city of Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony, that took place in the final months of the Second World War in the European Theatre. In four raids between 13 and 15 February 1945, 722 heavy bombers of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and 527 of the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) dropped more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices on the city.[1] The resulting firestorm destroyed fifteen square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre. Between 22,700 and 25,000 people were killed. ”, by the courtesy of Wikipedia. What happened there? How they – The US and the Great Britain – got there?
I’ll tell you how, my brothers: by letting Czechoslovakia to fall in 1938, seven years earlier, in the claws of the Nazi Germany and doing nothing regarding the Hitler early agresion, that’s how the world got there, bombing and killing innocent people for getting rid of the Nazi cancer. By letting Hitler to invade Poland, in 1939, and doing nothing but the ”phony war”, ”bombing” the German positions with pamphlets(!) and hoping that will stop the Nazi blitzkrieg through Poland.
And now, get this: ” Those who will show mercy in dealing with bad people will be in the end merciless when dealing with the innocent people ”. Try finding that on the net, please and tell me who is behind this saying.
September 7, 2013 at 7:46 AM
The author writes “Since Israel is the state most concerned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities, that kind of rhetoric suggests we’re drifting toward Netanyahu’s best-case scenario—Congress justifying a strike on Syria based largely on the interests of Israel. “
This is a total misreading and underestimation of the Iranian nuclear threat to the United States. Although Israel would be the prime target of the Iranian nuclear attack the US would be in its cross-hairs just as well since according to Bernard Lewis to the Iranians mutually assured destruction is an incentive,
Why are Bernard Lewis’s views on MAD ignored?
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-bernard-lewiss-views-on-mad.html
September 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM
if people in Israel is outraged for “400 gased children”, then what about an Israeli’ intervention in Syria? Funny when people want other countries to do a war. Maybe, if you feel the responsibility on your own shoulders, you will start looking beyond 400 gased children.
September 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Israel can intervene in Syria and ending there all this suffering, Israel can ”intervene” also in Iran and changing there the landscape( it might do that in one day, who knows), Israel can do this and Israel can do that…But has Israel the position of a World Superpower, like lets said, the USA or even The Great Britain? Or France? Be very careful to what I am asking. I didn’t ask if Israel is a superpower ( the answer to that is: yes ), I’ve asked if Israel has the position of a superpower, if it has the say of a world superpower and the answer to that one is : no. So Israel cannot intervene in Syria on the same base the US – Britain – France should intervene. If the national security of Israel is being threatened, then Israel will ”intervene” without asking anyone.
September 7, 2013 at 12:30 PM
you see? finally, I don’t see 400 gassed children anymore
September 7, 2013 at 1:10 PM
If you don’t see those children gassed anymore, go and change your glasses ; if you don’t ware glasses, then start considering to wear them. In any case, read my lines carefully, because you didn’t, since you gave that sorry answer.
However, I’ll make things simpler for you to understand:
Israel is not in the position of the USA , Great Britain or France to assume for itself the role of sheriff of the world. This is why Israel cannot intervene in Syria; its not our role to do that, even though we are crying here for those gassed children.
September 7, 2013 at 1:31 PM
I’m saying: I didn’t see them in you arguments anymore
September 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM
Of course you don’t see them in my argument anymore. Because Israel cannot act in Syria on this base, Israel doesn’t have the judiciary base to do that, even if there were there 1000 children gassed(God forbid). We are not the sheriff of the world, the USA are. I hope, sincerely, that you got that, finally, Mr. ” Isaac ”.
September 7, 2013 at 10:19 AM
400 gased children:
“The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge”
September 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM
My dear Isaac, take this please :
” In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on the edge.”
Jeremiah, 31-28, 31-29, {The Holy Scriptures, Koren Publishers Jerusalem}
September 7, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Reality says otherwise: previous generations mess it up, newer generations pay the price.
September 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Try dealing with this reality: Assad army made use of poisoned gas and, as a result, 400 children died in their sleep. That is what this story is all about, this is why Obama is emerging now like the Fire Bird, the legendary Phoenix from its own ashes, this is why his case is so strong and the bad guys are all in a corner, Putin included. This is why Samantha Power, which many didn’t give her much credit – and your humble servant included – made such a powerful come back yesterday, on that press conference when she spoke loud and clear about how Assad knew he will have his back covered by Putin, even if he should use war poisoned gas against the rebels. Should the Queen Boudica made yesterday a sudden appearance at the UN, she wouldn’t look better than Samantha Power. Kudos to her.
September 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Obama isn’t going to attack Syria:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/06/obama-hints-his-may-abandon-syria-strike/
September 7, 2013 at 1:34 PM
Obama a firebird, HA!
Oh, my goodness…
Obama will chose the path that maximize the destruction, the decadence and the death, including sitting on his hands when the time for Iran comes
September 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM
Lets be less apocalyptic, ” Isaac ”. Obama will do his job this time and Israel will be more secure. After all, that is what all of us are wanting here, don’t we? Or you don’t want a more secure Israel?
Don’t be shy, ” Isaac ”, spill it all.
My country, Israel, has been threatened for many years by the Syrian WMD arsenal and the world said : ” leave it, the Syrians are rational people, they wont make use of their WMD, ever.” But now, we see the opposite. Finally, Obama is standing for something important, meaningful, but the outside hypocrite world is not choosing the words or the means for trying and torpedoing the American leading action in Syria. Let the American President to start things rolling on in Syria; we’ll pick it from there.
September 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Of course I want safer Israel (even if, philosophically, I don’t believe in the existence of “safety”), I don’t want unnecessary violence.
And yes, I get your point, but I don’t agree with it:
* There are no sheriffs in this world, any oportunist will take that title-given the chance, even Iran. G’d forbid.
* Syria is not the world. Syria is a small country and even France could do something about it. So, why aren’t Israel doing something about 400 children in Syria? Because they are not israeli children?
* Israel is at war with Syria, last time I checked, and for good reasons, so this could be very well the opportunity to finish it. Having something to congratiate itself with the Arabs by the way. I understand, however, Israel has a bigger fish to cook, and that’s Iran.
There are good reasons for intervention in Syria, there are good reasons for not doing it, but 400 gassed childrens are an emotional appelation, not a reason.
If the opposition takes the power, will it be better? They will respect life or start a Syrian vendetta? Are we to take part in a fight where there is no moral high ground?
Because, they -as I said long ago- look more like to gangs fighting for the control of a corner, not like freedom fighters that want to end a tyranny, establish basic document enumerating human rights, write a constitution to protect those rights, and proclaim an government for an open society, inclusive of all credos, religions and race, and against persecution or discrimination of the minorities…
Finally, IF America is going to interven, I’d very much had prefer a true leader… just like Bush. We are talking here about Obama… totally lacking of ability and strategy knowledge, just like Carter. I think the worst thing would had been a Chamberlain starting a fight like Churchill, there are things that only the Churchills of this world can do, and Obama is not included in that list.
September 7, 2013 at 4:43 PM
Peace with you, my friend. We’ll speak after the next war. You are a good person, but all my explanations didn’t help. Or, may be, you didn’t read them. Its your right. Anyhow, I wish you, really, only good but I wont answer you personally, here, anymore. He who will read our series of discussions today, will understand why.
September 8, 2013 at 3:01 AM
Peace with you as well.
September 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM
11:20 GMT: President Obama said that a small military force may be needed in Syria after all, to deter future chemical weapons attacks – according to Reuters. Although he said on his weekly radio and internet address that a protracted conflict like “Iraq or Afghanistan” is not something he wants.
September 7, 2013 at 2:20 PM
Syrian rebels post image of burning U.S. Capitol
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/syrian-rebels-post-image-of-burning-u-s-capitol/#mRmqgwyfQFS5pEvO.99