Syria, Iran and the Wars Ahead

David P. Goldman:

Is there a better way to handle the Syrian calamity? I believe so.
 
First, neutralize Iran, by which I mean air strikes to destroy its nuclear weapons program and a few other military capabilities. That would remove the Assad regime’s main source of support. It would also make the Turks dispensable: without the Iranian threat, the Turkish army is just a makework program with obsolete weapons. Let the Alawites have their enclave, and let the Sunni Arabs have a rump state, minus the Syrian Kurds, whose autonomy would be an important step towards an eventual Kurdish state. The Turks and the Russians would be the biggest losers.

The USA isn’t likely to do this, which was probably Goldman’s point. It’s possible that the Iranian regime will collapse or that Israel will attack. The near-term odds of the regime falling on its own seem slim. The odds of an Israeli attack are probably increasing as the Israeli Right seems likely to increase its parliamentary majority. But an Israeli attack is far from certain and might not succeed in any event. It therefore seems likely that Syria will continue to fester, that Iran’s imperial ambitions will remain unchecked until there is a regional war, and that nuclear weapons will spread at a faster rate than otherwise. Eventually someone will use a nuke, or two or three, and then what? Richard Fernandez points out that we haven’t been thinking seriously about such things. Maybe it’s time to start. It doesn’t look like containment is going to work this time.

Quote of the Day

Charles Moore in the Telegraph:

…This sense of a people defeating appalling obstacles, through their own efforts and the hand of providence, is as old as Moses. As Conan Doyle implies, it is central to the story of the English-speaking peoples. Even today, it is what makes America new in each generation. Barack Obama does not believe in it he does not even like it. Mitt Romney does.
 
What the media see as a “gaffe” is often, in reality, a challenge to the dominant orthodoxy. In the late Seventies, Margaret Thatcher made the gaffe of questioning the motives of the Soviet Union when everyone else was mad about détente. She made the gaffe of questioning incomes policies when most people said they were the only way of stopping inflation. After a while, she piled up enough gaffes to make sure that she won the general election of 1979. In the United States in 1980, Ronald Reagan made those sorts of gaffes, too.
 
Then, as now, our entire economic system was in question. It was so serious that it put the West’s global predominance in question as well. The prize went to the candidate who raised the questions, and tried boldly to answer them, not to the one who tried to suppress them. I hope the same proves true in the United States next week.

Quote of the Day

TigerHawk: Things I wish liberals knew, or would acknowledge, about American business and business people:

Business acknowledges that it extracts value from labor in excess of its cost. However, it also confers value to its customers in excess of the price it charges. Left liberals worry a great deal about the surplus value conferred by labor, but often give no credit to the surplus value businesses confer on their customers.

Fantastic post by TigerHawk. Read the whole thing.

(Via @Fausta on Twitter.)

Not sure if there’s a deep point here but I like it.

From an interview with the famous photographer Bruce Davidson:

Q: It seems as though you’re really attracted to danger, what with hitchhiking and covering East Harlem, etc. Is that a fair statement?
 
A: Well, there are two things I’ve never done: I’ve never been under fire in a war and I never learned how to open my eyes underwater. For example, I had a fashion assignment on the beaches of Miami, but there were Portuguese Man O’ War jellyfish so we couldn’t jump into the surf as planned. So the art director said to me, “Bruce, let’s rent a motel pool,” and I said, “That’s a great idea!” He replied, “OK, I’ll rent an underwater camera.” I dove in with this waterproof camera to take pictures of these actors playing with the new fashionable stretch fabric clothing, but I never opened my eyes underwater. When I got out of the water, the actors asked how it looked and I said, “It’s beautiful!” When the pictures were edited, there were headless people — headless children without arms, women with half their heads gone, etc. The art director said, “This is brilliant work. This is superb! How did you do it?” I never told them, to this day, that I had never seen a thing.

(Via The Online Photographer.)