I doubt that Assad will cave to threats. I think we will have to take direction action – perhaps attack a few things he values (like a “missed” decapitation attack, port facilities, or whatever), and the tell him that it will get much worse unless he either deals with the Iraqi Baathists in Iraq or lets us do it.

A few bombs that go astray and hit that neighborhood where the Baathists live would also be useful. They are trying to win back their empire, but they are not taking personal risk – yet.

Perhaps some other actions in Syria, to serve as demonstration to other countries, might be useful too (heah that, Saudi?).

Syria holds Israel under somewhat of the threat that North Korea holds the south – it apparently has the ability to target much of Israel with WMDs, with Hizbollah in the middle of that with its own WMD and conventional rocket capabilities, some with significant range. This complicates things if Assad feels he is going to fail. But when dealing with these dictators, providing a way out (life in Saudi Arabia with a bunch of the money they stole) might be enough to induce a regime capitulation without the use of doomsday attacks.

The biggest mistake in Vietnam was failure to attack the North with enough force to caues them to capitulate.

Here, we need to do the same thing – those who help terrorists should be treated as terrorists. Are you listening, Assad?

Iran is much more of a problem, whose nuke program obiously needs to be stopped.

The administration certainly has plenty on its plate.

I think they might be feeding them stuff, either to find their leak or to spook the Iranians, or both..

But I gotta wonder if it is late May 1944 and Hersch knows when DDay is gonna be..would he keep his mouth shut?

Naaaaaa…

Well, you can hold on to your Pooter. Kerry just tried this already.

Pooter would first tour the Middle East apologising for the terrible mistakes you have made,publicly denounce atrocities by your troops and put the UN in charge,Oh sorry,you mean the other Pooter.

Assad won’t acquiesce to demands until he knows the price,which has just been spelled out to him,destabilise Iraq and Syria will be destabilised in return.

I don’t think acquiesence will be overt,the odd Baathist will have fatal shaving accidents and the like,Assad will do the bare minimum to comply and save face,but if Russian missiles start taking out Coalition assets all bets are off.

Quite so, Peter, but Assad has not acquiesced to our insistent demands to leave off of Iraq for these past two years. What specifically, now, will force him to finally heed? Perhaps the threat of cross-border incursions? When might we expect Assad to shut down the terrorist training camps and throw out Hussein’s Baathist thugs? How can we take action against Iran and potentially open another front until Syria comes along nicely? Are there credible rumblings in Assad’s ranks that we’re counting upon to erupt very soon? What would Pooter do?

this looks to me like a very difficult problem with lots of opportunities for failure . . . (not at all like the hit-the-empty-reactor-vessel Osirak strike.)

Cecil, you have to be right there. The maddening mullahs aren’t stupid and apparently have built and located facilities with defense in mind. But am not convinced this administration would undertake major ops and put “official” boots on the ground in Iran to take out the nuclear program there, especially with Iraq so unstable. I would think we’d need Iraq to help stage any special ops offensive in support of an air strike that we might make against the nuke sites, that we’d want back-up troops readily available “just in case” and not so bogged down in security keeping in Iraq, and also that domestic political will for such a bold strike would be in danger of evaporating without at least Iraq appearing to look stable. Even Repub pols have just so much patience for too many objectives and missions up in the air and incompleted—

Is there no possible combo of airstrikes in coordination with sabotage and covert ops that might set the Iranian nuclear program waaay back, at least until democratizing forces and external pressures can back down or topple the mullahs?

The demands look like a humiliation rather than a casus belli,that will be established by increasing numbers raids over the border and the discovery of Syrian involvement in attacks in Iraq.

I’m not sure that there are plans to invade Syria,I think the objective is a quiescent Syria which does not interfere in Iraq.If that can be realised there is a chance that Assad will be left in power,the demands look like they are directed at some internal opposition

The whole exercise is to isolate Iran by the strategy of neutralising the weakest opponent,after all does Syria want to be a party to a possible nuclear war from which it would never recover?

Sorry, not terribly clear. What I meant was escalating through the full gamut, from a credible threat of invasion, aid to democritization forces, blockade, strikes, and, if necessary, invasion. (And unfortunately, I believe the last would be necessary.) If it were possible to do it through aid to dissidents, knocking off Syria first and containing the Mullahs would make sense–but I don’t think it is.

“But guess we both will be relieved if the nuke sites get taken out . . .”

I would, but am not hopeful. I don’t have access to the planning data, but I used to do that strike stuff for a living, and this looks to me like a very difficult problem with lots of opportunities for failure . . . (not at all like the hit-the-empty-reactor-vessel Osirak strike.)

What timeline do you foresee for the Syrian decision, then? Do you think some accord with us or some internal move against Assad will happen in the next several weeks?

Of the nine demands to Syria,seven are of the kind that any sovereign nation could reasonably refuse as being outside the legitimate concern of the US.

Eight and nine are very pertinent to security in Iraq,but the others appear to be an intimation that the requirement is regime change.If Assad accedes then he will survive until the reforms topple him, if not he will be deposed.There will be a general somewhere who thinks that,Assad,the Baathists and an end to meddling in Iraq is a cheap price to pay for Syria.