Israeli Attacks on Syria are a Message to Iran, "Obama Doctrine" Fades

Israel has attacked Syria twice in recent days.

Now what?

Israel is taking proactive steps to ensure its defense.  While there are two sides to every story, history shows that pre-emptive strikes by the Israelis have been defensive in nature.

The latest strikes against Syria don't appear to be related to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons  against its own people, even as devastating as those reports are.  

These Israeli strikes appear to be a preemptive move directed directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for the Islamic, militant (and decidedly anti-Israel) Hezbollah.

According to the New York Times, the most recent strike was "aimed at disrupting the arms pipeline that runs from Syria to Hezbollah . . . highlighting the mounting stakes for Hezbollah and Israel as Syria becomes more chaotic."

The Times argues that Iran and Hezbollah have a keen interest in delivering advanced weapons to Hezbollah.  This is true, the Times argues, because Syria has been an effective channel for funneling weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, and if Assad loses power, that channel will be lost.

The problem lies in the reaction to Israel's actions by other countries.  Syria has already declared the Israeli attacks as a Declaration of War.  

But, with a civil war raging, it appears unlikely that Syria itself would be so bold as to respond with an attack directly on Israel.  Assad knows the Israeli response would be devastating and could launch the entire region into a major conflict, possibly drawing the United States in as well.

The recent Israeli strikes on Syria are a strategic warning to Syria, but more so to Iran.  

This is a proxy statement delivered to Iran through Syria saying, "Israel will take military action if we believe our security is threatened, and we won't wait until hundreds or thousands of our people are killed before we do so."

Iranian leaders like to rattle their sabres, but do they really want to get into a shooting war with Israel, and by proxy, the United States?

When is a Red Line REALLY a Red Line?

In the U.S., President Obama said that using chemical weapons in Syria would be "crossing a red line."  That presumably means that the US would act if it could be proved that Assad used chemical weapons against its people.  

Is this the "Obama Doctrine?" or was it simply an off-the-cuff remark?  Barry Pavel, a former defense policy adviser to President Obama has said "I'm not convinced [the President saying "red line"] was thought through."  Obama Doctrine or not, he's stuck with that position (unless he wishes to back-pedal, but that seems unlikely.

Obama has painted himself into a corner in regard to Syria, but Israel's preemptive strikes against Iranian missiles bound for Hezbollah may shift world focus away from the "Obama Doctrine" to the real actions of Israel, which may end up doing Obama's work for him.