[quote][i]Hit Him Hard[/i][/quote] Define "hitting him hard"

It's the title.

[quote]An American threat, especially over WMD, must count for something: it is hard to see how Mr Obama can eat his words without the superpower losing credibility with the likes of Iran and North Korea.[/quote] Yes, the United States doesn't want a precedent for widespread use to be set. But Assad's use thus far hasn't begun to set such a precedent. His chemical attacks have been far less devastating than Saddam's gas attacks during the Iran-Iraq War, and are on par with the Egyptian artillery bombardments during the North Yemen Civil War. Neither country was punished for their actions, and, miraculously, no precedent for widespread use was set. So what makes two incidents of use by Assad any different? It doesn't. Unless Assad starts to conduct massive, World War One scale attacks on rebel positions, I'd say that he isn't changing the overall international dynamic on the use of chemical weapons. Let's compare this to a nuclear Iran. Not only would that shift the power dynamic in the Middle East towards their favor, it would also give them more negotiating power in diplomatic talks. It would act as an anvil over the head of America that would decrease our ability to deal with their sponsorship of terrorism. There's also a good possibility that nuclear proliferation would become rampant in the Middle East, and a regional cold war could develop. Our credibility would definitely be shot then, as the promise to keep Iran nuke free is crucial to our relationships with major allies in the region. Then, of course, you have the potential use of a nuclear weapon against Israel, wiping out one of our closest allies. So it's obvious that we have major interests in preventing Iran from getting weapons, and backing down from our Syrian strikes doesn't change that obvious fact. Furthermore, backing down from Syria wouldn't change the reality that we have a massive military force in the region posited towards striking Iran. Nor would it lessen the seriousness of the most stringent sanctions we have recently passed against Iran. Not only is it clear that American interests in preventing Iran from getting weapons exist, it's also clear that we are more than willing to use force to make sure that interest is met. Threats are partially validated by a nation's interests in a given scenario, and partially validated by the resources placed by that nation in the region. Our interests in preventing Assad from using chemical weapons on a small scale are questionable, and the resources we deployed to the region were primarily to protect allies--like Turkey--from being hit by chemical missiles; hence, why Assad flouted our threat. [quote]So Mr Obama should focus on the third option: a more limited punishment of such severity that Mr Assad is deterred from ever using WMD again.[/quote] Just like Operation Desert Fox scared Iraq into complying with UN resolutions, and Operation Infinite Reach prevented Al-Qaeda from attacking us again. I agree with the Economist in that we need to help organize, train, and equip the moderate rebel groups. But until they become a unified front capable of overthrowing Assad and implementing a non-extremist government, I vote against any sort of direct military intervention. I'd rather wait for that to occur, than strike now.

[quote] it's also clear that we are more than willing to use force to make sure that interest is met.[/quote]See, this is my problem here, Tom. What are we basing this off of? Libya? Drone strikes? What have we done, militarily, in the last 4 years that directly undermines Iran? What is making it "clear that we are more than willing to use force" with Iran?

I think Stephan Walt makes a good point about the credibility argument: "He foolishly drew a "red line" a few months back, so now he's getting taunted with the old canard about the need to "restore U.S. credibility." This last argument is especially silly: If being willing to use force was the litmus test of a president's credibility, Obama is in no danger whatsoever. Or has everyone just forgotten about his decision to escalate in Afghanistan, the bombing of Libya, and all those drone strikes? More than anything else, Obama reminds me here of George Orwell in his famous essay "Shooting an Elephant." Orwell recounts how, while serving as a colonial officer in Burma, he was forced to shoot a rogue elephant simply because the local residents expected an official of the British Empire to act this way, even when the animal appeared to pose no further danger. If he didn't go ahead and dispatch the poor beast, he feared that his prestige and credibility might be diminished. Like Orwell, Obama seems to be sliding toward "doing something" because he feels he simply can't afford not to." Military action in a variety of countries over the past 4 years has firmly established Obama's willingness to utilize force when we believe our interests are at stake. Plus, the myriad of military forces in the region posited towards striking Iran, crippling sanctions on the regime, and our clear interest in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons all cement our position on maintaining the nuclear status quo in the region. The chemical strike in Syria (non U.S. interest) is completely different than the possibility of a nuclear Iran (U.S. interest), and Ayatollah Khomeini is smart enough to realize this. American refusal to strike in a situation lacking core interests isn't going to affect how countries perceive our willingness to strike in a scenario replete with American interests. Therefore, I hold that American regional credibility will survive if we do not follow through with Syria. Besides, a strike that is substantial enough to prevent any damage to our credibility is probably going to be on a scale that tips the strategic balance in the favor of the opposition. We definitely don't have any interests in this happening, as the moderate groups still lack cohesiveness and capability. Until they have the ability to counter extremist influence in the post-Assad political vacuum that inevitably consume Syria, I move to not strike the country at all.

[quote]American refusal to strike in a situation lacking core interests isn't going to affect how countries perceive our willingness to strike in a scenario replete with American interests. Therefore, I hold that American regional credibility will survive if we do not follow through with Syria.[/quote]I'm still not buying this argument. [url=http://news.yahoo.com/insight-obama-blinks-syria-israel-saudis-common-cause-125250283.html]Let's use this article from Reuters[/url] as an example. In the article, the authors assert the point that a strike in Syria goes deeper than just how Iran will perceive us. Indeed, the authors point out that if we do nothing, two of our main allies in the region--Israel and the Gulf States--will definitely perceive us differently when it comes to curbing Iranian influence within the region. It even goes as far as pointing out that Israeli officials might have a better case to take the initiative to strike Iran alone. I think we can agree that any strike or option we go with in Syria is not only aimed at hurting the Assad regime but also at mitigating Iranian influence within the region. I am, of course, referring to your comment about "core interests". Has it not been our goal to mitigate Iranian influence? Which brings me back to my previous question: What have we done, militarily, in the last four years that directly undermines Iran? Stepping up in Syria, not necessarily with a military strike, would, at least, be a start at undermining. [quote]We definitely don't have any interests in this happening, as the moderate groups still lack cohesiveness and capability. Until they have the ability to counter extremist influence in the post-Assad political vacuum that inevitably consume Syria[/quote]Actually arming moderate rebels and utilizing SOF/CIA to train said rebels would help with strengthening moderate groups, as well as lobbying Doha to lessen their support for the more radical groups.

[quote]It even goes as far as pointing out that Israeli officials might have a better case to take the initiative to strike Iran alone.[/quote] A capability the Israeli government [url=http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hayden-israel-iran-attack/2012/09/04/id/450740]really does not have at this point.[/url] To severely disrupt the Iranian nuclear program, they would need American support, especially in the forms of logistics, the facilitation of communications, combat aircraft, and intelligence. And while I think that the Israeli government lacks strategic thought on occasion, they're smart enough to realize that the time for a unilateral strike on Iran is a far ways off. In fact, the only way they would probably attack on their own is if Iran's nuclear weapons program reached a climax and the American government showed no interest in intervening. Iran's nuclear program has not [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0]reached that point yet[/url], and America still has a large number of military resources in the region to back up our threat and reaffirm our commitment. Honestly, I don't think this will affect how the Israeli government views the credibility of American commitments. Top level officials still believe in the credibility of American ultimatums. What they're more concerned about is how this will [url=http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/30/the_end_of_pax_netanyahu_syria_israel?page=0,1]affect Iran's perception[/url] of American credibility. But as I've pointed out before, we are still pressing hard on Iran. While not striking Syria might make Iran feel as if it has a little more wiggle room in the civil war, certainly it will not moot the seriousness of 3 dozen ships--including 2 carriers--off their shores and stringent embargoes that have not only dropped Iranian oil exports by 58%, but are responsible for crippling the Iranian dollar. Moreover, let's also remember the fact that we have no interest in enforcing a historically flouted norm (which Iran and Syria both realize), but have a lot of interest in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Half the credibility in a threat relies on you actually having interests in a scenario. Furthermore, there [i]are[/i] a series of overt and covert actions we can take to reenforce our intent to not let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Overtly, we could increase military forces in the region, conduct bilateral exercises with the Israelis that mimics an attack on an Iranian facility, pass more sanctions, increase security ties with Iraq, conduct an unexpected war-game with the Peninsula Shield Force, or even open up behind-the-scenes talks with Khomeini. On a more covert note, we could kill a couple more scientists, arm fighters in Iranian Kurdistan, hack and disrupt a nuclear facility, or even send in a team to attack one of the many Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps sites that permeate the globe. There are so many ways we can maintain or increase our credibility in the face of Tehran it's insane (assuming that this does severely damage our image in the face of Tehran, which it won't). [quote]Which brings me back to my previous question: What have we done, militarily, in the last four years that directly undermines Iran?[/quote] What makes you think that this strike is a good method of undermining Iran in a way that benefits us, and, more importantly, why is military force the only important factor in undermining Iran? Our sanctions, for example, have done far more to limit the influence of Iran by slashing oil exports by 58%, destroying their dollar, and [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-26/iran-influence-in-latin-america-waning-u-s-report-says.html]decreasing the capabilities of Iran to influence global events,[/url] than a strike on Syria ever will. [url=http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/212999.pdf]Oil funds nearly half of Iran's expenditures,[/url] so we're cutting the Iranian budget by about 25% a year right now. Obviously, this has some effect on the ability of Iran to advance its nuclear program or utilize force abroad. On a purely military note, our increased deployments in Gulf have undermined Iran's ability to intimidate and influence the behavior of nations like Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Sure, withdrawing from Iraq certainly allowed for increased Iranian influence in the region, but the Iraqi government wants to increase military ties with us. So that will hopefully be changing soon. [quote]Stepping up in Syria, not necessarily with a military strike, would, at least, be a start at undermining.[/quote] Even a coordinated and severe cruise missile strikes against Syria probably wouldn't undermine Iranian influence in the country. At least not in way that benefits us in the long term. The only real way to do that would be to fund moderate groups. Which is what we should be doing. If the argument is that we should conduct cruise missile strikes to undermine Iran, then it's important to note that there are better ways to accomplish that goal.

[quote]Iran's nuclear program has not reached that point yet[/quote]This may be true, [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE97R0LZ20130828]but Iran continues to expand their nuclear program[/url]. [quote]Our sanctions, for example, have done far more to limit the influence of Iran by slashing oil exports by 58%, destroying their dollar, and decreasing the capabilities of Iran to influence global events, than a strike on Syria ever will. Oil funds nearly half of Iran's expenditures, so we're cutting the Iranian budget by about 25% a year right now. Obviously, this has some effect on the ability of Iran to advance its nuclear program or utilize force abroad. [/quote]While sanctions upon Iran have no doubt hurt the economy of the country, just how deep it goes into curbing their nuclear ambitions isn't so clear. Some examples: -[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/17/us-iran-nuclear-centrifuges-idUSBRE97G0AQ20130817]Iran has 18,000 centrifuges[/url]. -[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-expands-nuclear-fuel-production-after-talks.html]Iran Expands Nuclear Fuel Production[/url]. -[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10229480/Iran-launch-site-likely-for-testing-ballistic-missiles-analysts-say.html]Iran launch site for testing ballistic missiles[/url]. -[url=http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/24/irans-expanding-nuclear-program-the-pink-tarp-that-spells-trouble/]Iran's Expanding Nuclear Program[/url]. [quote]Furthermore, there are a series of overt and covert actions we can take to reenforce our intent to not let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Overtly, we could increase military forces in the region, conduct bilateral exercises with the Israelis that mimics an attack on an Iranian facility, pass more sanctions, increase security ties with Iraq, conduct an unexpected war-game with the Peninsula Shield Force, or even open up behind-the-scenes talks with Khomeini. [/quote]You're absolutely right that there are many ways to "re-enforce" our intent and we should absolutely start doing a lot of these options, both the overt and covert ones. I'm a firm believer that our current rate of sanctions aren't doing enough (as shown above), so if we go the route of sanctions I think we need stronger ones. However, I'm also a firm believer that sanctions aren't a fix for every problem and I think we need to actually start researching into just how well our sanctions are actually doing in curbing their nuclear ambitions. If they aren't working like we hope, then maybe more serious options need to be considered. [quote]On a more covert note, we could kill a couple more scientists, arm fighters in Iranian Kurdistan, hack and disrupt a nuclear facility, or even send in a team to attack one of the many Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps sites that permeate the globe[/quote]I support this option more than the overt ones, but I figured you already knew that :) As for the rest, I guess we really will have to settle to agree to disagree. I believe a strike in Syria (again, not relatively soon. I still feel like there are more questions to be answered) is directly correlated to the overall "battle" with Iran. But don't say I didn't try, habibi. I know you wanted a debate lol.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree :p I would engage you more on Iran's nuclear program, but that would severely derail this thread. Plus, I think we already agree that a nuclear armed Iran is a bad Iran. And covertly arming the Kurds is the shizz-nizz <3