Low-Hanging Fruit & The Dems Are On A Diet

Via Powerline come a couple of less than scintillating stories in the context of what I discussed this afternoon.

A few days ago came a Guardian story about President Bush pulling the plug on his Administration's endless, foolish, embarrassing, pathetic, disgusting diplodiddling vis-a-vie the war Iran continues to wage against us in Iraq and their drive for nuclear weapons. Evidently Condi Rice and her State Department deputy Nicholas Burns said "Trust us" to the President one time too many, or else in Vice President Cheney's presence even once, and now the White House is shifting back to military options for "resolving this impasse." There was only a single unnamed source for this account, so who knows if there's anything to it, but one can hope and pray it's on the level.

In today's Washington Post ex-Bushie Michael Gerson argues for reducing the mullahs' options by leaning on their junior partners:

One of the most infuriating problems in Iraq seems to generate precious little fury.

In a kind of malicious chemistry experiment, hostile powers are adding accelerants to Iraq's frothing chaos. Iran smuggles in the advanced explosive devices that kill and maim American soldiers. Syria allows the transit of suicide bombers who kill Iraqis at markets and mosques, feeding sectarian rage....

America does not merely have challenges in the Middle East; we have enemies who contribute to the deaths of our troops. Yet Americans have shown little outrage, and the military reaction has been muted....

Syria....is what one former Administration official calls "lower-hanging fruit." The provocations are nearly as severe. Syria's Baathist regime provides a base of operations for its Iraqi Baathist comrades involved in the Sunni insurgency. Suicide bombers from Saudi Arabia and North Africa arrive by plane in Damascus, and, with the help of facilitators, some fifty to eighty cross into Iraq each month. The Syrians say they lack the ability to stop them; what they lack is the intention....

[H]ere the forceful options are more serious. Recent successful operations in Anbar province were undertaken, in part, to disrupt the trail of suicide bombers passing through Syria. It might also make sense to pursue targets into Syria on this theory: The Syrians say they are powerless to stop the flow of murderers killing innocent Iraqis, so we should try.

Increasing pressure of all types on Syria would demonstrate that being part of an anti-American alliance with Iran brings unpleasant consequences. And when that pressure builds sufficiently, it becomes possible to offer Syria a way out that separates it from Iran.

Max Boot adds the suggestion that we obliterate Damacus International Airport to cut off the transit of Sunni terrorists through Syria into Iraq and "send a salutary signal of American toughness and resolve around the Middle East, where such qualities are more respected than they are in American and European foreign policy salons."

God knows I have no objection to taking some long-overdue direct action against the Iran-Syria axis. Of course, I would prefer a straightforward regime-changing invasion, which is the only sure way to eliminate the enemy, terrorist regime in Damascus. But Boy Assad is sufficiently weak that he's likely a lot more coercible than are the mullahs. And it would be a neat counterpoint to the latter's attempt to drive us out of Iraq to pivot and take Syria away from them, by whichever means. It would certainly change the equation in Lebanon for Hezbollah, which would have its supply lines from Iran cut or at least made significantly more complicated. Tehran's regional influence would be dramatically truncated at a stroke, its master plan timetable disrupted, and with its economic pressures mounting the mullahs, like the Japanese sixty-six years ago, might be forced into moving directly against us before they're ready but while they still can. Only this time we (one would like to think) would be ready for them.

Unless they could hold on until January 20, 2009, when Presidents Rodham, Obama, or Edwards would come to their, and Boy Assad's, rescue:

In a letter, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate, noted Iran's support for terrorism.

"We cannot permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "We also must not let go unanswered its state sponsorship of terrorism. We must not stand silent in the face of brutal repression of women and minorities. And we must not tolerate threats to the existence of Israel."

Fellow Democratic contender and Illinois Senator Barack Obama said in a letter that allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons was "a risk we cannot take."

"To prevent this dangerous outcome," he said, "we need a comprehensive diplomatic strategy, including stronger action by the United Nations, to bring pressure to bear to reverse course."

Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said that "Iran's possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in one of the [most] unstable regions in the world, which directly threaten US interests."

Edwards said he would "take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies," outlining a program of engagement, increased sanctions, incentives and working directly with Russia and China, which have been reluctant to take as strong action as the US on the issue.

Two of the three declared Republican candidates who submitted statements said that "all options remain on the table" when dealing with Iran, while none of the five official Democratic candidates mentioned the possibility of using force. [emphases added]

They - which is to say, Hillary! - probably wouldn't consider that possibility even after a devastating WMD attack against our homeland - which would be Bush's fault, of course, for going into Iraq instead of continuing to pursue "diplomacy" with Saddam Hussein and invading Afghanistan instead of negotiating with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. They are small, unserious, dangerous people who will get unimaginable numbers of people killed in the Middle East, Europe, and here if they're given full power over America's fate.

We'll give Mr. Gerson the last word:

Engagement and deft diplomacy are not likely to change the Iranian interest in American defeat. Iran would require an unacceptable inducement to bail out American interests in Iraq: permission to proceed with its nuclear program. America would purchase tactical advantages in Iraq at a tremendous price - a strategic nightmare in the entire Middle East.