WarSclerotic

Obama: Get approval from Congress on Iran now – Opinion Israel News Broadcast | Haaretz.

The U.S. President’s commitment to preventing Iran going nuclear means he must go to Congress now, before it crosses the red line, and not after, as is now the case with Syria and its use of chemical weapons.

By Alan M. Dershowitz | Sep. 5, 2013 | 8:01 PM | 31

President Barack Obama speaks to the media in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013. Photo by AP

Congressional approval for a punitive-deterrent strike against Syria’s use of chemical weapons should not be misunderstood by Iran, Israel, or anyone else. The decision, which involved many moving parts, was not intended to show any weakened resolve to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Nor was it intended to represent any American trend toward increasing isolationism, either in relation to the world in general or the Middle East in particular.

The president’s decision to take his case to Congress was the result of a complex of reasons, both constitutional and political. It was made by a president who had campaigned on the principle that congressional approval for non-emergency military actions is generally desirable and sometimes legally required. But it was also made by a president who had committed our nation to a red line, which if crossed, would demand a response.

Hence the conflict: A president cannot commit his nation to a red line if he is also committed to securing congressional approval before responding to the crossing of that red line. What if Congress denies approval? Must the president still keep his red line commitment? If he does not, what does this say about other red line commitments, such as that made regarding Iran’s efforts to secure nuclear weapons? How will Iranian mullahs interpret the president’s decision to go to Congress? And how will the Israeli government respond to it? Will misunderstandings increase the likelihood of a military confrontation with Iran? These questions and the uncertainty of the answers reflect the dilemma posed by the president’s decision to go to Congress after drawing a red line that Syria has crossed.

There is a way out of this dilemma, at least with regard to Iran and its future actions. The president should secure congressional approval now as to the red line with Iran.

President Obama should ask Congress for authorization now to take military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program if it were to cross the red line he has already drawn. If Congress gives its approval, that action will increase the deterrent threat currently directed against Iran, by underscoring the red line as having been drawn both by the president and by Congress. It should leave no doubt in the minds of the Iranian mullahs that the president not only has the will to enforce the red line but also has the authority from Congress to do so.

Having the authority to engage in military action does not require that the president take such action; it only empowers him to do so if he chooses, without further action by Congress. But as President Obama has repeatedly warned: he does not bluff; if he says he will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons, he means it—unless Congress stops him. If Congress were now to give advance approval to the red line with Iran, the mullahs will understand that there will be no stopping the President from keeping his word. Only if the mullahs believe that President Obama will attack their nuclear reactors if they cross the red line will there be any hope of deterring them from doing so. The goal is not to have the President actually attack Iran. It is to persuade Iran that he will do so if they defy the will of Congress, the President and the American people by crossing the red line.

President Obama has already shown Iran that he is willing to take military action against Syria without the approval of the UN Security Council, Great Britain, NATO, the Arab League and other representatives of the international community—as long as he has the approval of Congress. This is especially important with regard to Iran, because Congress is more likely to support military action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program than is the international community.

There are dangers is drawing red lines too far in advance of them being crossed. A president who commits his nation to taking action if the line is crossed ties his hands, as the events in Syria demonstrate. But President Obama has already tied his hands on Iran—and properly so. He has made a commitment not only to the American people whose national security would be placed at risk by a nuclear armed Iran, but also to the leaders of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Israel, for whom a nuclear armed Iran poses an even greater threat. And Israel has acted—or forborne from acting—in reliance on that firm commitment. Now these American allies must be assured—and America’s enemies, especially Iran, must be warned—that President Obama is capable of keeping his promise, and that Congress won’t stop him from doing so.

Iran is different from Syria. America’s national interest would be directly weakened if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons. It has not been directly weakened by Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. The case for a red line against Iran is far stronger than it was for a red line against Syria.

Congress should first authorize the president to keep his commitment with regard to Syria. Then it should authorize the president to keep his far more important commitment with regard to the red line against Iran. This dual congressional action will strengthen America’s position in the world and will help to prevent the game-changing disaster of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Alan M. Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard, is a practicing criminal and constitutional lawyer and the author, most recently, of The Trials of Zion. His autobiography, “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law”, will be published in October 2013.

Fire, ready, aim in Syria.

A senior GOP advisor remarked on the White House’s handling of military action against Syria: “If I had a dollar for every logical question that could be asked about the way he’s handled this, I could fund the thing.” Well let’s count up:

President Obama (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Why did President Obama spend so long trying to engage Bashar al-Assad, giving the impression of U.S. desperation?

Why did his administration refer to him as “reformer” even as the uprising began?

Why did he call for Assad to go but did nothing to effectuate that for over two years?

Why did he not recognize the delay would allow jihadis to flood into the country?

Why did he not recognize that with Iranian and Hezbollah troops on the ground this had become a critical issue for the mullahs?

Why did he refuse to aid the Free Syrian Army for so long? And why when he did promise aid did nothing arrive?

Why is he only now seeking a coalition of countries in the region to aid in ousting Assad?

Why did he tell the country and world that “a decade of war” was ending when al-Qaeda was on the march and Iran and Hezbollah were strengthening Assad’s hand?

Why did he let the first use of chemical weapons take place without a response?

Why did he issue a red line if he didn’t mean it?

Why didn’t the U.S. long ago figure out where Assad’s chemical weapons were stored? And why didn’t he take seriously the Free Syrian Army’s warning about use of chemical weapons?

Why did he not consider the murder of 100,000 Syrians to be a crime against humanity?

Why did he signal he had made up his mind to use force and then flinch and drag in Congress?

Why after dragging in Congress did he not quickly give a speech and go to the public to make his case?

Why schedule a speech after so many lawmakers were already locked into a “no” vote?

Supporters of a “yes” vote characterize the situation as “a real challenge,” as one official of a pro-Israel group put it. He said that a “yes” vote was ”only possible if there is a huge momentum change triggered by presidential intervention.” It’s not clear that one speech is going to do it. For House Democrats it will have to be seen as nothing short of a last-ditch effort to save the Obama presidency.

An aide to a senior Senate Republican willing to back the resolution summed it up: “There are a lot of members who believe he has the authority, so it’s hard to vote no — but are so irritated with the way he’s handling it.” He repeated, “It’s very hard.”

Right Turn has learned from Senate nose-counters that “there’s a good number on the fence not sure what to do. Also, there are about a dozen or so GOP senators will have dinner with [Vice President Joe] Biden on Sunday.” Apparently, that’s a better bet than dinner with Obama.

I suppose the problem with having a White House full of flunkies and yes-men driven purely by political concerns is that when a genuine crisis comes along there is no one to give the president hard truths and solid advice. But let’s not blame the current crop of aides, no matter how bad they may be. Obama selected them and, moreover, for  2 1/2 years — as set forth above — made one blunder after another. If he gets a historic rebuke from Congress (never before has it rejected a request for authorization of force), he has no one to blame but himself.

Republicans eager for an Obama debacle need not vote “no”; the president has done that all by himself. They can only at this point set forth what course they recommend.

An Air Strike Imperative.

Ronen Solomon

6/9/2013

In the past week, US defense officials have claimed that the timing of the operation against Syrian military and government targets, or primarily against the regime’s HQs that supervise Syria’s unconventional arsenal, will not influence the objectives of the operation, and that it can also be done in a month from now.

This information, delivered by the architects of the strike, is valid on the assumption that the US planned the use of fighter aircraft in advance, and not just the utilization of massive fire of Tomahawk missile from the naval vessels cruising through the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

Advanced weapons have been transferred within Syria, apparently including the transfer of chemical warheads from  regular bunkers to underground facilities dispersed in the region. This began once that it was understood that the plan for an attack could be on its way with a notice of just days, and would probably include the area where Division 155 – responsible for firing the chemical rockets at the eastern and western suburbs of Damascus – was operating.

Division 155 commands over numerous warehouses of missiles and artillery in the Damascus sector, which can also carry chemical warheads. Most of the infrastructure is routinely deployed or stored in semi-revealed bunkers. However, Syria also constructed underground facilities near the bases deep in the mountain for times of war. The characteristics of these facilities resemble those built by Iran near the city of Qom, in order to protect its nuclear facilities against attacks. The similarity is not accidental – most of Syria’s underground infrastructures were constructed with Iranian and North Korean assistance, and are controlled by the Syrian military’s elite units also responsible for securing the chemical weapons.

Another example of an underground facility suspected of being tied to the unconventional weapons project is located near the city of Masyaf in Syria’s western Hama governorate. This is where Syria constructed warehouses in the depth of the mountain apparently used to store equipment and nuclear materials tied to the reactor project that was destroyed in Al Kibar.

Such facilities can only be breached and destroyed through the use of ‘bunker busters’. The GBU-28s ‘bunker buster’ bomb can be launched from F-15I aircraft,  when the target marking is done with a laser beam. The bomb has was given its nickname since it is intended to detonate only after it pierces through the defenses of structures protected deep in the ground.

The educated use of these bombs or similar ones could send a signal to Iran – which is closely observing the developments – as to the ability to damage its underground nuclear facilities, in the event that a diplomatic agreement is not reached.

‘Syria, Iran, Hezbollah set up situation room’ | The Times of Israel.

Lebanese terror group mobilizes ‘tens of thousands’ of fighters while Tehran, Damascus prepare for ‘various scenarios’ in case of US strike

Syrian President Bashar Assad tours the neighborhoods of Darayya, August 1, 2013. (Photo credit: Syrian Presidency/Instagram)

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah have set up a joint situation room in preparation for a potential US-led strike in Syria, with Hezbollah mobilizing “tens of thousands” of fighters for the occasion.

The military operations coordination between the three is meant to plan for the monitoring of targets and organizing of retaliation, the Lebanese Daily Star reported Friday, citing senior Lebanese political and diplomatic sources.

“Iran, Syria and Hezbollah don’t have a clear picture about what Americans have planned,” said one diplomat,“but [they] too are prepared for various scenarios.”

Political sources said Hezbollah put “tens of thousands” of fighters and reservists on alert in anticipation of a US strike.

“Everyone in Hezbollah who has been trained to use weapons has been put on high alert,” one political source told the Lebanese daily. “The party is ready for all eventualities.”

Iran and Hezbollah have repeatedly indicated that they would back Syria’s Bashar Assad regime in the event of a strike in response to the reported use of chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb on August 21, which the US says killed 1,429 people.

Hezbollah has already been heavily involved in the Syrian battlefield for several months now on the Assad side, which has cost the Lebanese group some political capital at home, not to mention the spillover from Syria it has brought with it. Lebanon has been the scene of several incidents that are perceived as retaliatory attacks for Hezbollah’s involvement Syria. Just last month, a car bombing killed 22 people in a Hezbollah stronghold in south Beirut. In early July, a similar attack took place but did not cause any deaths.

Lebanese officials cited in the Daily Star report warned that Iran and Hezbollah see the targeting of Syrian army posts, airfields and weapons depots as a strategic threat to their interests and of course to Assad, which would give them a reason to intervene. But the officials indicated that they were likely to do so only if the US strike seriously threatened the regime’s rule.

On Friday, a report in the Wall Street Journal indicated that the US had intercepted orders from the head of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force, Kassem Sulemenai, in Iran to to Iranian-supported Shi’ite militia groups in Iraq to attack American sites should a strike on Syria take place.

The targeted sites could include the US embassy in Baghdad and other American interest sites in the Iraqi capital, as well as the US embassy in Beirut and other sites in Lebanon via Hezbollah, officials said.

On Friday, the US State Department ordered non-essential diplomatic staff out of Lebanon and strongly urged private US citizens to leave as well, citing security concerns.

Iran has also threatened to hit Israel should the US carry out a strike, with the commander of the Revolutionary Guards’ General Mohammad Ali Jafari saying late last month that a possible war in Syria “will result in the imminent destruction of the Zionist regime of Israel.”

But Syria too has a bank of targets, according to the Lebanese report, having already threatened to strike Israel, Turkey and Jordan in retaliation for any attack.

Meanwhile, the US is also preparing for an expansion of targets should the decision to carry out an attack come through. On Friday, it was reported that US President Barack Obama instructed the Pentagon to add Syrian sites to its target list, with the order coming in response to intelligence indications that the Syrian government has moved troops and equipment used to employ chemical weapons.

The US is considering employing Air Force bombers in addition to ship-launched cruise missiles.

Obama is now seeking congressional approval for a US-led strike, having gained authorization from a Senate panel Wednesday to order an attack, the limits of which include a time frame of 90 days and the exclusion of American boots on the ground.

The Syrian regime has denied using chemical weapons, calling US claims “blatant lies,” and blaming any WMD attacks on rebels and “al-Qaeda.”

▶ Weekly Address: Calling for Limited Military Action in Syria – YouTube.

US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses.

US Air Force B-2 stealth bomber

The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive.
Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrianj ruler’s military edge over rebel forces without toppling him. These air raids could moreover be conducted from afar without American aircraft coming within range of Syrian air defense batteries.

The US operation will also target the Syrian army’s 4^th and Republican Guard divisions, protectors of the Assad presidency and regime, which were responsible for using chemical weapons, but not the weapons themselves. debkafile’s military sources say they can’t be destroyed by air assault – only by ground forces, which the US president has ruled out in advance.

It was that conclusion which led Washington to considering air strikes for taking down the ballistic missiles, which may be used as the vehicles for delivering the poison gases both within Syria and beyond its borders.
This expanded inventory of targets portends a broader operation in scope than Obama’s first plan, which was designed only to caution the Syrian ruler of his peril for engaging in chemical warfare. The extensions to this plan would go a lot further than a deterrent warning and seriously downgrade his military and strategic capabilities.
Russia and Iran are already getting set to replenish by air and sea the losses the US air and missile offensive is expected to inflict on the Syria military.

US Secretary of State John Kerry and ambassador to the UN Samantha Power stressed in the last few hours that the US felt fully justified in going forward against Syria’s use of chemical weapons without a UN mandate and, indeed, they indicated, the president would consider such action “the right thing to do” even if US Congress withheld its support.
For now, Obama will be spending all his time on a blitz to win lawmakers round to the strike against Syria, while Kerry seeks European and Arab partners for the operation, in addition to France which has already come forward.

America’s real Middle East priority: Iran | JPost | Israel News.

Why Israel Supports the Syria Strike – Jake J. Smith – The Atlantic.

Israeli soldiers look across the border into Syria. (Ronen Zvulun/Reuters)

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.

US, EU see new hope for Iran nuclear talks | The Times of Israel.

( Let’s see….  No strike on Syria and buying into the new “moderate” Iranian President.  The West is batting a thousand.  It really IS all up to little Israel.  God be with us… – JW )

Ashton to meet with Western-educated Iranian FM Javad Zarif in New York, in hopes of setting dates for formal talks

European foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton talks with journalists as she arrives for a Informal Meeting of EU Ministers for Foreign Affairs at the National Museum – Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania in Vilnius, Lithuania, Friday, Sept. 6, 2013. (AP Photo/Mindaugas Kulbis)

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union and the US are moving closer to resuming international talks with Iran on its disputed nuclear program, buoyed by recent changes in Tehran’s leadership, officials said Friday.

“We are ready to come very quickly to talks,” said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who has over the past years led the negotiations with Iran over allegations it is seeking to build a nuclear weapons program. “We really want to move now quickly to resolve this.”

Recognizing the election of centrist Hassan Rouhani as president in June, US President Barack Obama said that it offers “the opportunity to demonstrate in acts and not just words that … they do not pursue nuclear weapons.”

French President Francois Hollande, who was in St. Petersburg with Obama for the Group of 20 summit, said that “we want to believe in the statements of the new president” who has sounded more conciliatory than his predecessor.

Rouhani confirmed Thursday that the foreign ministry led by Javad Zarif — a Western-educated diplomat — will lead nuclear talks with world powers, marking a shift away from the often more hawkish security officials who had previously set the negotiation strategy.

At a meeting of the EU’s 28 foreign ministers in Vilnius, Ashton said she called Zarif and agreed to meet with him later this month on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

“I stand ready with my colleagues to get the talks moving,” she said. Ashton added she hopes “that when we meet in New York we will have the opportunity to set dates (for the formal talks) there.”

“We’ve got some good proposals on the table. We are always willing to listen to good proposals from Iran,” Ashton said.

While it is assumed that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will have the last word on the nuclear issue, Rouhani was elected on the promise of getting rid of the international sanctions that are crippling Iran’s economy. Analysts view the appointment of the foreign affairs ministry to lead the nuclear negotiations — instead of the Supreme National Security Council — as a sign that the new administration might be more willing to compromise with the West.

On Friday, a report by the semi-official Mehr news agency in Iran pointed in the same direction. It quoted Zarif as saying “We see our interest in removing the misunderstanding, if there is any.”

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said in Vilnius that he sees a broader shift in approach as other leading Iranian officials had also been named to new posts linked to the nuclear issue. “They all point in the same direction,” Bildt said. “That they are more interested in a dialogue.”

At the same time, a top EU court on Friday said it would throw out penalties imposed on several Iranian businesses for their alleged ties to Iran’s nuclear program.

The EU General Court ruled there wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify the sanctions imposed by the bloc on eight Iranian banks and companies.

The court said the sanctions will stay in place for at least two months pending any appeal. If an appeal is filed by an EU government, the sanctions would remain binding until a ruling.

Friday’s ruling affects private and semi-governmental banks with mostly domestic activities, an insurance company covering Iranian international trade, and engineering companies known for their oil business, the main source of Iran’s foreign revenue.

“We are fully aware, as are the (EU) member states, of the consequences deriving from these judgments,” said Michael Mann, spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

He said Ashton’s office “and the EU’s member states are also fully aware of the need to come to a swift conclusion on the approach regarding these cases.”

The EU is one of Iran’s most important trading partners. Since 2010, however, the bloc has imposed asset freezes and travel bans on top of existing U.N. sanctions, targeting Iranian citizens and companies believed to be linked to the country’s nuclear program. The EU then significantly escalated the nuclear-related sanctions by 2012 to include an oil-import embargo.

Despite the West’s claims, Tehran insists its nuclear program serves only civilian purposes, such as energy production and medical research. Years of negotiations with Iran with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany have failed to make much headway.

Friday’s EU court ruling voided the freezing of assets held in the EU by Post Bank Iran, Iran Insurance Company, Good Luck Shipping and Export Development Bank of Iran. It found that the bloc’s governments couldn’t “properly establish that they had provided support for nuclear proliferation.”

The court also annulled the sanctions imposed on Bank Refah Kargaran, Persia International Bank, a businessman identified only as Mr. Bateni, and Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co., citing insufficient evidence.

However, the court dismissed a similar lawsuit brought forward by the country’s important Bank Melli Iran because the institute continued to pay scholarships for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran after the latter was put on a U.N. Security Council sanctions list.

The court also upheld sanctions against the Germany-based EIHB, or European-Iranian trade bank, leaving its funds frozen.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

On Syria, Iran Plots Revenge, U.S. Says – WSJ.com.

( US setting the stage for taking out Iran? – JW )

Officials Say Intercepted Message to Militants Orders Reprisals in Iraq if Syria Hit

WASHINGTON—The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

Military officials have been trying to predict the range of possible responses from Syria, Iran and their allies. U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran’s fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf, where American warships are positioned. U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut.

While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies.

Those deployments include a strike group of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and three destroyers in the Red Sea, and an amphibious ship, the USS San Antonio, in the Eastern Mediterranean, which would help with any evacuations.

The U.S. military has also readied Marines and other assets to aid evacuation of diplomatic compounds if needed, and the State Department began making preparations last week for potential retaliation against U.S. embassies and other interests in the Middle East and North Africa.

U.S. officials began planning for a possible strike on Syrian regime assets after the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus in which the U.S. says Syrian government forces killed over 1,400 people using chemical weapons. The U.S. military has prepared options for an attack and beefed up its military resources in the region, including positioning four destroyers in the Eastern Mediterranean.

That process slowed last weekend when Mr. Obama said he would first seek an authorization for using military force from Congress.

A delay in a U.S. strike would increase opportunities for coordinated retaliation by groups allied with the Assad government, including Shiite militias in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

The destroyers positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean are equipped with—in addition to Tomahawk missiles that could be used against Syria—the Standard Missile-3, which could be used to intercept ballistic missiles should Iran launch a retaliatory strike, officials said.

Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the “destruction of Israel.”

The State Department issued a new alert on Thursday warning against nonessential travel to Iraq and citing terrorist activity “at levels unseen since 2008.” Earlier this year, an alert said that violence against Americans had decreased. That reassurance was dropped from the most recent alert.

The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards’ Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.

In it, Mr. Soleimani said Shiite groups must be prepared to respond with force after a U.S. strike on Syria. Iranian officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Iraqi Shiites have been sympathetic to the Alawite-dominated government of Syria and oppose U.S. strikes against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. officials said the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was one likely target. The officials didn’t describe the range of potential targets indicated by the intelligence.

Attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad have fallen since American forces left Iraq. In the past, Iranian-trained Shiite groups have fired rockets and mortars at the embassy, at the urging of the Qods Force, a paramilitary arm of the IRGC.

Militants also have used suicide bombers and IEDs to attack Americans leaving the embassy compound, one of the largest American diplomatic facilities in the world, located in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone.

Syrians could also respond with “a vicious offensive” against the opposition inside Syria, said Aaron David Miller, a former top Middle East negotiator in the State Department who now is a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Such a move, he said, would be a way “to demonstrate defiance” without running the risk of hitting American targets.

Some officials believe a direct response from the Syrian or Iranian governments is less likely than reprisals from allied militant groups, such as Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, whose members have been fighting alongside government forces against the Syrian rebellion, could be used to launch rocket attacks against U.S. military assets or American allies, including Israel.

When the U.S. went to war with Iraq in 1991, Saddam Hussein fired rockets at Israel. Officials in Mr. Assad’s government have threatened to strike Israel, as well as Syria’s neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they aid the U.S.

For days, American officials have said they were particularly concerned about potential attacks on Turkey and Jordan. U.S. officials haven’t reinforced defenses in those countries, but both already have Patriot batteries capable of shooting down incoming missiles or fighter planes.

Jordanian officials have said they also fear they could be hit by rockets or that Syrian forces would force new waves of refugees across the shared border, overwhelming the kingdom.

Other U.S. allies also are worried about an increased threat of retaliation.

French officials said they are concerned Hezbollah could target the hundreds of French troops taking part in a U.N.-backed peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon.

Israeli officials have made clear they would respond forcefully if, in response to U.S. strike, Hezbollah fires rockets into the country.