Share This Article with a Friend!

Why We Must Fight Iran in Syria

Iran Special Forces
The United States has been fighting proxy wars with Iran for 35 years, and Syria is our most important battlefield.

The case for fighting the Syrian proxy war with Iran was perhaps best made by Washington Post columnist and former President George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, when he wrote, “Disengagement [from Syria] would shift the worst case once again: further spreading cross-border radicalization, refugee flows and uncontainable Shiite-Sunni warfare across the Middle East. Iran would see a United States unable or unwilling to accomplish its goals in the region and draw the obvious conclusions.”

But what will it take to dislodge Assad and in the process defeat Iran, if that’s the ultimate goal?

The AP reported that, with Russia and Iran standing by Assad, he seems poised to cling to power for now, even if unable to retake all of Syria. Some predict an eventual division of Syria into regime- and rebel-held areas, with conflict simmering for years.

Furthermore, the fall of the Assad regime, a prospect that appears distant at the moment, would not ensure an end to the fighting. Assad's die-hard supporters might not lay down arms and the rebels are divided between Western-backed moderates, Islamic fundamentalists and al-Qaida loyalists who could battle for control after a collapse of the Assad regime.

And this battle is in some ways already taking shape, even though Assad remains at the head of the nominal government of Syria.

Sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the region have risen sharply, particularly since the Iranian-backed Hezbollah joined the fighting. Most of the rebels are Sunni Muslims. Sunni hard-liners view Hezbollah's intervention as a declaration of war by Shiites against Sunnis, and have called on Sunnis to fight in Syria. This has increased the flow of foreign militants into Syria. Already “several thousand foreign militants” are believed to be fighting among the rebels according to the AP’s Karin Laub.

The Saudis and the other Gulf state monarchies – led by Qatar – understand what is at stake and are heavily invested in turning back Iran, and of course supporting their fellow Sunnis, in Syria.

Done right, U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war offers the possibility of a strategic defeat of Iran. If the United States acts to tip the balance of power in the civil war, Iran would be weakened by the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, its single Arab ally and a vital link to their important clients – Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia. Isolated, Iran would become more vulnerable to international pressure to limit its nuclear program. As dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Vali Nasr observed for Bloomberg, if “Iran’s regional influence faded, those of its rivals -- U.S. allies Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia -- would expand.”

As Dean Vali Nasr pointed out, “If successful in Syria, the Russian-Iranian bloc will seek greater influence in new areas, such as the Persian Gulf.” And the Russians are already looking at the Middle East chessboard and planning many moves ahead – they invited Bahrain’s Shiite opposition party, al-Wifaq, to visit Moscow in February.

What’s more, the prospect of a hot war with Iran is growing as Israel continues to contemplate a preemptive attack to prevent the radical Islamic Republic from developing the nuclear weapons that would make it the superpower of the Middle East – and the acknowledged leader of the worldwide jihadi movement.

Isolationists and those wishing simply to embarrass President Obama for their own political purposes may be content for the United States to leave the Middle East and its troubles behind, but that feeling will be short-lived if the legacy of preventing the President from intervening in Syria is a region dominated by what Vali Nasr so correctly termed “an aggressive Russian-Iranian axis.”

Share this


I'm trying to be kind here, but you dingbats who don't want to be involved in Syria. Have you ever stopped to ask why you weren't born in another country?

VIDEOS SHOW VICTIMS OF SYRIA GAS ATTACK: Men sprawled on a tile floor, shirtless and convulsing – children who are unable to control their shaking and flailing - panic and screams in the background.(Ynet)

With the measure you judge, you will be judged.

The American indifference is ad-nauseum. One of our founding father's said, that our government is wholly inadequate to govern anything but a religious people: read of PURE religion in the Scriptures. It's listed.

Although I'm still a conservative, conservatives are a shame in light of those from times past. Yes, Obama is not trustworthy and evil, but here's an idea America - REPENT!!

Americans act like a bunch of nincompoops who can't see past the end of their noses. Check out how the IDF handles a target once they decide to do it and it's set, it's done.

Why a 'war'?


The problem is that under Obama, it won't be done right. Everything he does, he does wrong. Especially military affairs where you wonder just who's side is he on. He still has a lot a explaining to do about Benghazi. Do y'all trust him? I don't.

Why didn't we Avenge the Four Heroes in Benghazi

So, why are we not seeking revenge for the cold blooded, ruthless slaying and RAPE of our four hero American bretheren in Benghazi? I mean after all, Obama says he is avenging the gasing of the innocent people of Syra.

For that matter,why are we not avenging the massacre of Christians in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood?

You see, it is not about Iran. You give Obama too much credit.

It is actually very simple. Obama hates Christianity, and he loves his Islamic "brothers".

Do you recall when he ordered the crosses at Georgetown Univ. Covered?

Do you recall that OCare forces Christians who offer healthcare for employees to provide medical insurance coverage that calls for the payment of birth control and abortion?

This man is evil, pure and simple, and he sees America as a "Christian" nation, which is why he hates it.

If there is a war, it will be our sons who will die, not the sons of Obama, or Kerry, or Boehner. People, you MUST understand this man's motives and communicate his EVIL INTENT to those who need to know: the young people need to know so that they can bring him down, so that they can stop him.

Who is More Dangerous?

An administration with a political philosophy rooted in progressivism and a deep resentment for America leading our millitary into battle? Or a two-bit tyrant who has the foreign millitary support to sustain a bloody stalement for decades?

Syria is a socialist police state. The rebels want to replace it with a socialist and Islamic made facist regime.

Do nothing and the US will be reviled in the region. Do something and the US will be reviled in the region. The difference? Our millitary does not pay the ultimate price for a failed foreign policy and contradictory rules of engagement.

The US millitary is the best in the world. If we are going to deploy US millitary force, we should be prepared to unleash the troops. Give combatant commanders the legal room to do their jobs as they were trained. Anything less will lead to failure


Absolutely none of our business. Obama and his allies on the hill are just trying to start WW3 for their own selfish reasons. Sure the towns that have Sikorski, Lockheed Martin, or Northup Grummond factories or military bases will be all for it, but for the rest of America it is a kick in the nads when we are already reeling from the depression.

Oh, he's quoting MICHAEL GERSON - NOW I'm convinced! ROTFLMAO

Look, about the only person more responsible for the transformation of the GOP and the USA and the planet into a garbage heap than Karl Rove is Michael Gerson. Even John Bolton doesn't want us involved in Syria. AT ALL. So I guess HE doesn't even think that EVEN IF Israel, or whatever other interest you can name, is a valid US interest in the Mideast, that stopping Assad's predations in any way prevents us from accomplishing our goals.

Don't forget, Iran has already been able to wipe out Israel in five minutes since mid-July 2008. It helped tank oil prices from $147 to under $100 in six weeks. WHY has Iran not wiped out Israel if they can do it with conventional missiles? Oh, yeah, Israel has had nukes since the early 1970s. So I guess we have had MAD in the Mideast between Iran and Israel for over five years. That's one of many reasons why Iran is no big deal, and Syria is an even smaller deal.

Are you smoking dope (like all the rest of the neo-cons)?

We do not have a mandate to be the policemen of the world.

There is no imminent threat from Syria to us here in the US.

The Constitution (you know, that document that you love to re-interpret for your own purposes or just basically ignore) says the President does not have the power to unilaterally declare war. If we use any sort of military force in Syria, that is effectively declaring war. (Only pinheads, poli-sci majors, and lawyers would argue differently - see a recent President's discussion of the meaning of the word "is.")

The "intelligence" that Assad used the chemical weapons is highly suspect.

We have already wasted trillions of dollars in Iraq (another war started based on faulty intelligence) with no positive results but a lot of hatred engendered, not to mention thousands of killed and injured US military.

You will notice this whole article's premise is based on the absurd belief that Iran will see us as "weak" and that it is our responsibility to supposedly influence the balance of power in the region. Give me a break - what kind of stupid, selfish, and solely political reason is that to endanger our troops, bomb innocent civilians (which will absolutely happen), and further enrage a group of people that already tend to hate us?

I have written my congressman and senators urging them strongly to NOT authorize the President to go to war against Syria. I highly/strongly recommend all others do the same.

J. Collins, US Navy, retired.

Writing Senators

Write My senators and congressman? It's done! I also wrote Boehner and demanded a vote. Boehner is protecting Obama by not holding a vote. He's afraid Obama will be humiliated. Obama could benefit from some humiliation. How many times has he humiliated the American people?

First, you can't have

First, you can't have disengagement from Syria when we're not engaged to begin with. Second, the administration has already ruled out regime change, so no balance of power will be tipped. Third, intervention will threaten Israel. Fourth, Putin is not going to go along and play nice.

The same culprits who rushed to war in Iraq

Michael Gerson does not know when to leave the stage. How many corpses need to pile up before he restrains himself? That Madaurus is forced to rely on Gerson for making his case for war reveals the utter bankruptcy of his position. All the mumjo-jumbo policy wonk nonsense he can muster will not obfuscate the obvious. This is not our war. Not a single American soldier, sailor or airman should be put in harms way for the fantastical whims of Madaurus, Gerson, Nasr, McCain, Graham, Kristol, Kerry or Obama. Opposition to entering this war is not about humiliating Obama. Nonsense. That's a convenient straw man argument. It's about protecting America's core national security, about avoiding the unknown perils of widening the Syrian civil war to a regional war, and about finally abandoning the wacky and discredited policy of pretending to be the World's policeman. We have nothing to gain by entering militarily into this conflict - and much to lose.