I dislike the author's presumption that Iran and Hezbollah would somehow be weakened if the US were to become involved and take the lead. It'ss a broad, sweeping statement, but it has no depth and frankly very little basis in reality.
I am slowly coming to appreciate that the hawks are using the same buzzwords: militant jihadists; crime of the 21st Century; Iran; Assad = blood dripping from fangs killer. The list goes on, but I think the affliction of narrow-sightedness remains consistent, and the belief that this will work itself out in the end because the US steps in, has this uncanny way of resonating over and over.
If the use of force is decided upon, the first jets to break the border need to be Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi. Think of the coalition-building coup if Israel has a hand in it too. I know, an alliance with the Jews seems far-fetched, but if they are already getting in league with the Americans... As we strive to build partner capacity and strengthen regional relationships, we need to get a coalition formed and involve the neighbors. If they cannot be convinced, co-opted, or coerced into taking on a task that affects their security, then it isn't a task worth doing and we need to settle on other measures that don't result in the expense of deploying forces, nor the direct risk to a single servicemember.
The US needs to be ready for an Iranian counter move in the Gulf. Perhaps it will be an IRBM launched at Doha. Maybe the IRG will seed tethered mines in the chokepoint. Something cloak-and-dagger across the border in Afghanistan seems more likely. The point is the US needs to be ready to take on not only Assad, but every actor aligned with him. If the US fails to accomodate ffor those actors in any use of force, things will be screwed up from the start. Perhaps--just perhaps--the administration is planning better than ever before, and not just "pondering". I can think of a couple dozen other issues that are at stake through intervention in Syria (e.g. attacks on Israel, terrorism at home, etc.) that must be thought through before someone decides stepping in is really, really, really in the US interest.
When the Council was established, the US was already involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's remarkable that we've seen intervention in Libya since then, and we are now seeing the US stare down the ledge once again.
Bookmarks