Bush has done moved on--quite deftly

ARTICLE: "A Mission of Mystery: Israel sends Iran a signal with a stealth raid into Syria," by Dan Ephron and Mark Hosenball, Newsweek, 24 September 2007, p. 40.

ARTICLE: "Israel Calls Gaza 'Hostile' In Step to Tighten Penalties," by Steven Erlanger and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 20 September 2007, p. A12.

ARTICLE: "Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site: Bush Was Told of North Korean Presence in Syria, Sources Told," by Glenn Kessler and Robin Wright, Washington Post, 21 September 2007, p. A1.

ARTICLE: "MoveOn Unmoved By Furor Over Ad Targeting Petraeus," by Perry Bacon, Jr., Washington Post, 21 September 2007, p. A1.

Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, we are told by a well-placed Israeli source, "asked President Bush for assurances that if economic and political sanctions failed to get Iran to shut down its nuclear facilities, Bush would order the U.S. military to destroy them before he leaves office."

The same source says Bush has yet to provide such assurances, and that the Israelis are convinced Iran reaches a point of no return sometime next year. U.S. intell agencies say it will take a while longer to make weaponization real--maybe as long as 8 years but probably a lot faster.

The Newsweek piece ends by saying if Israel decides to do it, there will never be a more supportive U.S. presidency than the current one, so their incentives to get it done before Bush leaves office are many. With Bush's surge now focused on the Shia, such a preventive war could easily suck in the Americans. Indeed, it would be hard for us not to get involved on some level.

But with Israel teeing up the Gaza Strip, there's also the temptation to see the Syria strike (Do they have Kim's nukes? It's as good a story as any and really, does the story matter?) as a bit of clearing the deck regarding potential troublemakers (state-based, at least) if Israel decides to do something directly against Hamas as part of its package of coming closer to dealing significantly with Fatah.

And there we backtrack a bit to Sarah Kass' scenario from a while back: begin the Iranian roll-back by taking down Hamas, squeezing Syria, and settling Iraq just enough that Iran's regional prospects look hemmed in enough so that any direct talks with them on nukes proceeds from a position of greater strength.

Anyway, it's nice to dream.

I think Israel's going to get busy, one way or another.

Today's WaPo extends the story back further, to great effect. Olmert's asking way back when because the U.S. and Israel have been sharing this info for months, it is now made public. Israel, NBC says this morning on TV, was given the green light to attack a while ago.

So it's very interesting that Israel decides--all by its lonesome--to hit Syria right when Petraeus is testifying.

You package that steadily over time, along with the manufactured furor over MoveOn (My, I look over American history and this has to be the first time a general was ever impugned during war! Really, the general's a big boy so why can't the Senate be as well?), and you've given MoveOn exactly what they asked for--you've moved on to looming military strikes against Syria (box checked) and Iran (box to be checked).

The indisputable scenario (meaning the one you'll be presented as unchallengeable): Israel does what it has to do with Syria (perhaps after Syria et. al ramp up following Israel's decision to clear Gaza) and the U.S. is forced to attack Iran to stop its entry into the expanding war.

Israel has to clear Hamas and/or Syria due to the immediate threats (nuclear, in Syria's case) and America has to defend Israel by going to war with Iran (both the immediate threat to our troops in Iraq and the danger of nukes).

If you think selling the surge was easy, this will be ... how to put this ... a slam dunk!

Seriously. This is a brilliant package.

Comments

[Mike Frager]

Sure, it's a clever set up. But like you say, it's a typical military plan that focuses exclusively on the start of conflict. But, what's the plan after we destroy the Iranian state from the air? Or, more importantly how do we stop this reckless (and probably insane) scenario from happening?

I like your work Tom, because it's forward-looking and looks for a positive role for the military to play. But, war is the worst of all options and we should always to try to hold out and keep the peace for one more day... Because once you light the fuse no one really knows what the outcome will be. But we know it won't be pretty.

Deterrence works best when you are at home in your fortress polishing your strike fighters. When you have to go to war, your enemy gets to find out exactly how strong you AREN'T.

[farhad]

flip,flap with the blow of the wind.of course as a stragyist you have different version.

[Ted O'Connor]

Remember "Shock and Awe"? We bombed a bunch of Saddam's palaces. Looked pretty good on CNN. Saddam (what a surprise) was not in any of them. Mr. Frager has a point. We don't have enough troops to invade Iran and occupy Iraq. That means we have to depend on air strikes alone to destroy the Nuke plants. I don't see the Brits in on this one. Maybe I am wrong, but it looks to me like when "High Noon" comes, just like Gary Cooper, we will be walking down the street alone. If we team up with Israel....we inflame the entire Arab world. We have a superb professional military but our guys do have a tendency to say "Can do!" whenever a president or Sec Def proposes a mission. It will cause enough problems for us worldwide if we go in and conduct one powerful but successful strike. If we have to go back again and (God forbid) again we are really isolating ourselves.

[Michael]

One of the articles speculated that one reason for this strike was to feel out the Arab's likely response to strikes on Iran. If that's the case, shouldn't Israel do something odd like TALK to the Arab states? Find out how they really feel, what kind of help (if any) they'd be willing to provide, all that jazz? Wait, that would make sense and is therefore banned throughout the ME. . .:P

[William R. Cumming]

Tom! How does the relationship of Turkey to Israel and Turkey to Syria fit into the current state of play in the mid-east and this Israeli strike? Am I missing something or does Turkey not have an interest is what happens next door including issues of a nuclear capable Syria which as I understand it is largely Alewite and Shia? Does Iran in any way impact on what the Syrians actually do foreign policy wise, and is it more than a comfortable operating base for terrorists from Iran to give fits to Israel? I still believe the four real countries in the middle east are Egypt, Iran, and Turkey together with Israel . The rest of South Asia is in a long-term sorting out historically that may only be a reflection of their status as buffer zones. My analysis is based on this area prior to the arrival of petro-history and which of course at some point will vanish as an essential factor although probably not this century. What is interesting of course is that only one of the four countries, Iran, has oil. Does the US really have a grasp on how the four relate and how their foreign policies mesh or don't mesh (with or without US)? How strange is it that oil is largely in Shia dominated areas of South Asia?

[stuart abrams]

The large majority of the Syrian population is Sunni. The Alewite sect is relatively small, but disproportionately influential in the elite. The Syrian Shiite population is quite small, smaller, I believe, than the percentage of Syrian Christians. One lesson to learn about human group dynamics: they are incredibly complicated. (Catholic France allied with Protestant Sweden vs. the Holy Roman Empire during the 30 Years War). Dividing the Islamic world along neat Sunni/Shiite divisions is extremely simplistic and highly misleading.