Andrew Sullivan: If Bush is now gunning for anyone, it¡¯s Syria not Iran

[emad]

Sunday Times Comment

What will be the Bush administration¡¯s foreign policy in the second term? Condoleezza Rice, the newly confirmed secretary of state, will have briefed her British counterpart by now but much of Washington is out of the loop.

One theory can, I think, be largely dismissed. Pioneered by Seymour Hersh, the journalist, and the more paranoid set is the notion that the United States is about to embark on a new series of military invasions in the Middle East. Hersh is an excellent reporter. But the problem with his analysis is that he has no relevant sources.

If you are a disaffected bureaucrat or a special forces officer appalled at the sanctioning of torture, you have Hersh on your mobile phone speed dial. I have no doubt, for example, that there may indeed be American operatives under cover in Iran trying to figure out where the nuclear facilities are. I very much hope so.

But this does not mean that the Bush administration is about to invade Iran ¡ª or any other country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1471884,00.html

[Career Prole]

1. Who to believe...Seymour Hersh or Andrew Sullivan?

Hersh has genuine credibility...earned credibility.
Sullivan has been dead wrong about this administration's actions in the Middle East since the beginning and therefore doesn't have Hersh's credibility.

[blondeatlast]

2. SullivaN? Mr. Credibility--NOT?

No thanks.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. i remember last year when Sharon said," I want America after it's done..

with Iraq to go immediately into Syria"

[quaoar]

4. Syria is a much easier target than Iran

Plus, a big chunk of the Syrian army is tied down in Lebanon.

Plus, a big battle in Syria comes closer to fulfilling biblical prophesy -- an army from the east approaching the plain of Meggido for the final battle. Meggido is in northern Israel.

[leesa]

6. Screw biblical fairy tales. You think this is a good idea?

[quaoar]

7. Not at all

There is no justification whatsoever to attack Syria.

But it's obviously a juicy target to Bush for the reasons cited.

It would also make it easier to ship Iraqi oil to Israel.

[jab105]

9. In many ways, the Bush adminsitration seems hell bent on fulfilling

Biblical prophecies...the ones that lead to total destruction...which is much scarier...

Quaoar...is you name taken from that big comet like object they found beyond of Pluto...my earth/space science class was talking about that last week:)

[quaoar]

10. Indeed it is

You're the first person to ask me that. Kudos.

[Career Prole]

11. IMO, just the fact that Syria is the easier target

would put Iran in shrub's sights first. I can't imagine any scenario short of open warfare between Israel and Syria which would make them focus eastward from Iraq (which is only barely controlled and could quickly get hostile) leaving Iran uncontrolled at their rear.
Prophecy or no prophecy.
PNAC thinks they have all the time they need now, but they also know that another massive screw-up like Iraq would turn public opinion solidly against them.

[leesa]

5. Never mind the continuous threats by Bush and Condi to Iran...I guess

they aren't credible threats! By the way, makes me feel sooooo much better that we will launch a pre-emptive strike against Syria rather than Iran. Sullivan is so ignorant!

[PurityOfEssence]

8. I've been wrong about a lot, but I've been saying this all along

and so have many others.

Here's why: the PNAC's biggest loyalty isn't to the U.S. or the Petroleum Industry or even fundamentalists; it's to ISRAEL. Syria has an intact, though very outdated military, but a smaller population than Iraq. With what army, you ask? It's called the IDF, and I'm sure Israel's got plans a'plenty to do it.

We can't do much of anything about Iran; they've got three times the population of Iraq, an intact (althought also obsolete) military, and very tough terrain. They are also an intact society, and even if many of them don't like their government, they'll rally to the flag.

I still think we were moving to do it right after taking Baghdad, but couldn't handle the situation there.

The toppling of Syria would do more for Israel than ANYTHING ELSE. It doesn't mean that we wouldn't also hit Iranian nuclear facilities, but the major initiative may well be Syria.

Never underestimate these people. We've heard about the "Syrian problem", we've got sanctions against them, we've had continuous murky stories since our invasion about aiding the insurgents, firing mortars at the Iraqi side of the border, harboring terrorists, receiving WMDs, and a continual background furore over political ties and the like.