Syria: The Debate Heats Up
How Will Iran Respond To A Strike On Syria
Hanin Ghaddar of NOW! Lebanon looks at the potential reaction by Iran to a military strike on Syria. Noting that Hezbollah in Syria is fighting for Iran, he says “Iran will not sacrifice Hezbollah for Syria in any military action, nor will it sacrifice Hezbollah’s heavy weaponry.” However, a military strike would leave Iran with two potential options – to use Hezbollah and its Iraqi counterpart to further destabilize the region or to maximize its “diplomatic efforts in order to reach a settlement over the nuclear program. The more bargaining chips Iran loses in the region, the more compromising it will be. The nuclear program is what really matter for Iran, after all.”
US, Europe Should Not Intervene
Echoing a question asked by many Americans when any discussion of possible military intervention begins, Ali Salim of the Gatestone Institute wonders who should bear the burden of responsibility for events in the Middle East. His answer is quite simple: Not the US, nor Europe.
Offering support for Obama’s (to date) hands-off policy, Salim says that is “the only way the affairs of the Middle East will resolve themselves on their own. Authentic revolutions take place on the front lines, not in the rear.”
He continues: “It is the lack of American action that will cause the situation to right itself in Egypt, Syria, North Africa and other centers of unrest in the Arab-Muslim world. The naive fantasies of American and European advisors must not be allowed to interfere with real and necessary processes in the Middle East.”
Garance Franke-Ruta of The Atlantic makes the moral case for taking action in Syria, while Christopher Preble counters in an editorial in USA Today that no action should be taken because the violence in Syria poses no direct threat to the United States.