US President Barak Obama’s delay in launching a military strike against Syrian targets is cause for concern among leaders in Israel. They fear the move as it is perceived will serve to strengthen both Iran and Hizbullah. While a US strike just a few short days ago appeared imminent, today, as the White House seeks congressional approval, the strike may be delayed for some time or possibly called off entirely. Actually, it now appears likely that the strike will not take place as the president failed to enlist the support of American’s staunchest allies, with Britain leading that list. While British Prime Minister David Cameron was on board, he failed to enlist the support of his parliament.
For Israel’s leaders their growing concerns less surround Syria as they are increasingly focused on Iran and its ongoing nuclear program. An American assault against Syrian targets would show America’s presence in the region and send a stern message to Tehran and Hizbullah. From an Israeli point of view, Obama’s unwillingness to make good on his own statements warning Syria against the use of chemical weapons is a signal that Israel will have to go it alone against Iran. Israeli leaders are concerned for they realize if Obama’s statements and military presence in the region are ultimately nothing more than a bluff, this will send a most unwanted message to Iran and Hizbullah.
It is now clear that the US president has opened an expanded window of opportunity for a diplomatic solution in Syria since the congress will not be discussing the matter for about another week, followed by the UN General Assembly on 17 September in New York City. Barring and radical change in the area, the US is unlikely to take any military action against Syria prior to hearing from the congress and UN.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
' } });
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
Way to go Hussein!
Maybe we can all hold hands and work this out amicably.
Considering the the rebel include the same people we are fighting in Afghanistan, and that the rebels are opposed to Christians (and note that many Americans are Christians), it’s hard to disagree with the Australian opposition leader (a conservative by their standards) who referred to the choice be “baddies.”
It is interesting that Obama (vintage this week) as opposed to Obama (vintage until this week), as well as Bush before him, suddenly became a constitutional conservative by rejecting the idea that the president can do whatever he feels like – but in all fairness, the decisions about war and peace do belong to the Congress, not the President.
obama liar say he always will have Israel’s back door but how far back. Can you make peace with Hamas and PLO as long as obamanation is in the white house??????????????????????
Is the author of the third paragraph of this article the same person who wrote the first two paragraphs? The last paragraph speaks of an widely open window of opportunity for peace, but the first two paragraphs talk of the Israeli leadership’s concern that the US has not been quick enough in entering the Syrian civil war.
But never mind all that. Can anyone give a clear and concise answer about what the US should do about the civil war in Syria, particularly the use of poison gas? There’s plenty of criticism of the president’s suppposed indecision, but now he’s asking Congress to put up or shut up on whether to join the war, and Congress does not want to take responsibility for anything more complicated than the name of a post office in East Podunk.