Here’s advice to the members of the United States Congress as they are asked to endorse an American-led attack on the government of Syria: Start your consideration by establishing priorities, clarifying what matters most to the country. The Obama administration rightly points to two urgent matters: stopping the Iranian nuclear buildup and maintaining the security of Israel. To these, I add a third: reestablishing the U.S. deterrent credibility laid low by Barack Obama.
Note that this list conspicuously does not mention the Syrian regime’s chemical arsenal (the largest in the world) or its recent use. That’s because those pale in horror and in danger by comparison with the nuclear weapons now under construction in Iran. Also, the attack in Ghouta, Syria, on August 21 was appalling, but not worse than killing a hundred times more civilians through other means, including torture. Further, that attack breached multiple international conventions, but surely no one expects “limited strikes” to restrain desperate dictators.
How best, then, to achieve the real priorities concerning Iran, Israel, and U.S. deterrence? Several options exist. Going from most violent to least, they include:
2. Bust the regime’s chops without overthrowing it — the Obama administration’s proposed approach. This scenario takes us no less into the unknown: Evidence exists that the Assad regime does not worry about the U.S.-led “punishment” but already plans to deploy chemicals again, perhaps against civilians, as does Tehran against American targets. Further, as I have pointed out, a limited strike could lead to “violence against Israel, an activation of sleeper cells in Western countries, or heightened dependence on Tehran.” I’ve also noted that surviving the strikes would permit Assad to claim victory and boast that he had defeated the United States. This step risks almost as much as overthrowing Assad does, but it lacks the benefit of getting rid of him; it is the worst of these three options.
3. Do nothing. This scenario has several disadvantages: letting Assad get away with his chemical attack; eroding Obama’s credibility after his declaring the use of chemicals a “red line”; and strengthening the hardliners in Iran. But it has the even greater advantages of not further inflaming an already combustible war theater, maintaining the strategically beneficial standoff between regime and rebels, and, most important, not distracting Washington from the really important country — Iran.
By all accounts, the mullahs in Tehran are getting ever closer to the point where they can order nuclear bombs to be made and readied for use. Unlike the use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, this prospect would be a matter of the most direct and vital personal concern to Americans, for it could lead to an electromagnetic-pulse attack on our electrical grid, suddenly returning us to a 19th-century economy and possibly resulting in a couple of hundred million fatalities.
Such prospects make the methods by which Syrians kill each other a decidedly less vital matter for Congress than Iranian plans to bring the United States to its knees. In this light, note that Barack Obama has followed his fellow Democrat Bill Clinton in a readiness to use force where American interests precisely are not vitally involved: Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Libya, and now Syria. Need one really argue that American troops be deployed only to protect their own country?
While the Saudi foreign minister and the Arab League haughtily demand that “the international community” do its duty and stop the bloodshed in Syria, this American suggests that Sunni Muslims who wish to protect their kin in Syria do so with their own plentiful petrodollars and large armies.
In this light, I recommend that Congress reject the sideshow proffered by the administration and instead pass a resolution endorsing and encouraging force against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
— Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and author of three books on Syria. © 2013 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.