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.

Obama Gives Israel the Green Light to Attack Iran

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) , President Obama today gave Israel the green light to launch a preemptive strike on Iran to prevent the Iranians from fully developing their nuclear weapons capabilities.

On CNN, Obama's remarks were portrayed opposite this analysis, both by the CNN host and by her guests.  They characterized Obama’s remarks as too soft and non-committal and critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Here’s what Obama said to AIPAC:

“We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically.  Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States, just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovreign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.

"I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.  That includes all elements of American power . . . including a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

"We are investing in new capabilities. We’re providing Israel with more advanced technology, the types of products and systems that only go to our closest friends and allies.  Make no mistake, we will do what it takes to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge because Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.  

Later in the same address, President Obama said, ""For the sake of Israel's security, America's security, and the peace and security of the world, now is not the time for bluster; now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in. … Now is the time to heed that timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt: Speak softly, but carry a big stick."

These remarks have been interpreted as meaning that Obama is loathe to use military action against Iran, and that he is at odds with the Israelis.

I disagree.

I believe this is Obama's way of creating "cover" for himself in the event that Israel decides it must attack Iran before it is nuclear capable.

According to CNN reports, earlier in the day at the AIPAC conference, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned "Iran will be stopped."  Israel "does not seek" war he said, adding: "Peace is always our first option. But, if we are forced to fight, trust me, we shall prevail."

Speaking just before Obama, Peres said,"The United States and Israel share the same goal: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is no space between us. Our message is clear: Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon."

"Iran is an evil, cruel, morally corrupt regime," Peres said. "It is based on destruction. It is an affront to human dignity. Iran is the center, the sponsor, the financier of world terror. Iran is a danger to the entire world. It threatens Berlin as well as Madrid, Delhi as well as Bangkok." 

Israel and Iran are on an all-but-assured collision course.  The Israeli government will NOT allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, but after his rhetorical attacks on the Bush administration for its actions in Iraq, Obama cannot afford to be seen as launching a possibly unnecessary attack on Iran, even in the defense of Israel.

However, as he has intimated today, Obama will not intervene if Israel determines that a preemptive strike against Iran is necessary.

Look for a strike within 90 days or less.

American Truism # 7.