mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Iran Could Pull Obama Into A Wider War


The White House has been indicating that any intervention in Syria would be solely for the purpose of punishing Assad for using chemical weapons against his people—that the goal of any retaliation is not regime change, and that the scope of the intervention would be measured in days and not weeks or months.

Yet if Iran has its way, those kinds artificial limitations on the scope of war might be hard for President Obama to stick to:

“In case of a U.S. military strike against Syria, the flames of outrage of the region’s revolutionaries will point toward the Zionist regime,” the semiofficial Fars news agency quoted Mansur Haqiqatpur, an influential member of Parliament, as saying on Tuesday. […]

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, meeting with visiting Sultan Qaboos bin Said al Said of Oman in Tehran on Monday, predicted the Syrian conflict would escalate far beyond its borders if other regional nations continued to aid the Syrian opposition.

“Their supporters must know that this fire will finally engulf them as well,” Mr. Khamenei said, according to the Mehr news agency.

Iranian rockets raining down on Israel could make this a much wider war in a hurry, a war that the United States would have no choice but to participate in. War is inherently chaotic and messy, and no amount of talk can ensure that a limited undertaking is guaranteed to stay that way. We hope President Obama is in fact thinking bigger picture than he’s letting on, and that he has a broader regional strategy in mind.

[Ayatollah Ali Khamenei photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]

Features Icon
show comments
  • Philopoemen

    Given Iran’s track record of idle threats and overall incompetence, I find it difficult to take this seriously.

    • ljgude

      Yes, surely the Iranians are smart enough to realize that have to wait until they have nuclear weapons before they rain down missiles on Israel.

      • Philopoemen

        Will they be dropping them from their R/C “stealth bomber”?

  • rheddles

    ” We hope President Obama is in fact thinking bigger picture than he’s letting on”

    Why do you think he would start now. Go back and re-read your posts on Libya. The fool has learned nothing. His sole goal seems to be to make Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter look good.

    • Jim__L

      VM makes a policy of giving a very generous benefit of the doubt to our leadership.

      I think it’s a rhetorical device, allowing that leadership a face-saving way to start following VM’s advice.

      Has it worked yet?

    • bpuharic

      Typical right wing lunatic. Can’t wait to see flag draped coffins coming home to Dover. Wants to repeat our success in Iraq.

  • Jim__L

    “Iranian rockets raining down on Israel could make this a much wider war
    in a hurry, a war that the United States would have no choice but to
    participate in.”

    Is that another way of saying this is not a war Israel could win on its own?

  • ljgude

    Yes, wars sometimes get out of control, but with the preannounced limitations in this case I think that Iran, China and Russia can see that Obama is not about to do anything drastic. Besides Assad is just a cat’s paw for Iran which is sitting back laughing at us. The gas attack, seems to me to be Assad seeing just how far he can go with Obama. Given the aggressive side of Obama’s nature I would expect him to do more than blow up an aspirin factory. No boots on the ground, but plenty of precision bang bangs.

    • bpuharic

      Better an aspirin factory than 4400 US dead and a 2 trillion dollar hole in our budget like the right wing would like

      • boldface

        if it’s just gonna be an aspirin factory, then it shouldnt’ be done at all. Doing nothing beats doing something laughable. But the lefties don’t seem to have the brains to do nuance on these things.

        • bpuharic

          The right, however, seems to have no problem making dead soldiers, and blowtorching our economy to support their endless wars.

          • boldface

            you really have absolutely no reading comprehension. Are you a bot?

          • Fred

            No, just an idiot.

  • Matt B

    So Assad is playing Obama perfectly. Force the United States’ hand with chemical weapons (thanks to an apparent “ad-lib” policy improvisation from the President) and Assad can transform his civil war into a regional Jihad against Israel and the US.

    As WRM has been saying all along, Obama’s inaction regarding Syria has only invited much bigger problems.

    I do not think Obama is capable of thinking strategically, because he refuses to see the world as it is.

    • bpuharic

      So he’s playing a civil war perfectly and we’re staying out of it.

      I realize the right is fascinated by flag draped coffins and huge war related budget deficits, while complaining about budget deficits, but that’s what makes you guys so lovable:

      you have no common sense

      • boldface

        If our brilliant leader had the brains to keep him mouth shut and not make stupid red lines, you might have a point. But he doesn’t and he didn’t. So your point is about as mindless as our president is. So now he got us into a pickle, totally gratuitously, because he’s incapable of thinking past the next two news cycles and the next round of polls. He wants to look tough, so he says these stupid things. And now he set up a situation where a tinpot dictator like junior Assad sticks his finger in the US’s eye, and the country’s influence wanes day by day. Good work, Barry.

        Talk about having no common sense.

        • bpuharic

          HOLY COW!!! The nerve agent isn’t dry yet and you’re beating the war drums

          No wonder conservatives get us into so much trouble. You guys, with your hysteria, shriek MISSION ACCOMPLISHED then rack up trillions on the credit card to pay for your endless wars

          • boldface

            are you able to read? Was anyone beating war drums? You really let absolutely nothing get in the way of repeating your talking points over and over and over, do you?

            My point, had you bothered to read, or had even a smidgen of reading comprehension, was that doing little or nothing would have been the clear best option if our President had not opened his mouth and let stupid things come out (but I repeat myself). Now he has put himself into pretty much an impossible situation, where all choices are bad.

            Capisce? or is this much nuance too complicated for your leftie brain? (I’m counting down now to the expected response about body bags and deficits in three…. two……… one………. GO!)

          • bpuharic

            Yeah. You guys are beating the war drum. WRM did yesterday an you guys, fresh from your disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan, are here to lecture Obama, who hasn’t started ONE WAR involving US ground troops…on how to deal with international situations

            Opened his mouth? Gee. And if he’d said nothing you’d be all over him for that. In fact your main objection is not that he’s done or hasn’t done anything

            Your main objection is that he’s the POTUS.

            You want stupid? How about 4400 dead? 2 trillion in spending that we didn’t have

            THAT, my illiterate, right wing bobble head, is the DEFINITION of stupidity.

          • Tom

            Let me make sure I understand your thesis correctly: Bush botched Iraq, therefore Obama is perfect no matter what.
            Is that correct?

          • bpuharic

            No you don’t understand me correctly

            Conservative foreign policy is heavy on wars that are unfunded. They kill people and destroy our economy.

            That’s what conservatism is.

            So tell me again about your successes

          • Tom

            Okay, I gotcha now. Your definition of conservative foreign policy is that of the neocons, aka Rumsfeld and crew.
            Okay, it all makes sense now.
            Your sense of history is…lacking.

          • bpuharic

            Coming from a guy who says those folks AREN’T part of history, that’s pretty rich

          • Tom

            And your reading comprehension as well. Conservative foreign policy doesn’t automatically equal neocon foreign policy–which, by the way, looks a lot like liberal interventionist foreign policy, except for being more blatantly selfish.

          • boldface

            yeah, I didn’t want him as president because he is totally unqualified for the job, and the lack of any experience or qualification (or, for that matter, judgment) is showing. The only thing he’s good at is politicking and getting elected. He’s a bumbling fool and he’s taking the country down with him. Great economy we have after five years of his governance, eh? And we’ve never been more respected around the world than we are right now under the guidance of the Great Leader.

            Now I’ll start the countdown until you call me racist. Three, two, one………..

          • bpuharic

            And yet the GOP elected…at least once…a do nothing governor whose sole claim to success was being bankrolled by daddie’s rich friends. He got us into 2 expensive wars while presiding over the biggest recession in 80 years.

            And I realize right wingers don’t read, but the recent Reinhart Rogoff study of 800 years of recessions found that financial sector recoveries are ALWAYS SLOWER than others because of the damage they do

            You guys own this. This is a conservative disaster.

            So tell me again why, after you guys killed 4400 troops in Iraq, and passed a tax cut that made the rich richer while you bailed out the rich on Wall STreet

            tell me again about why we should have let you continue to act as Visigoths

  • Atanu Maulik

    Don’t worry, Obama will get away with whatever mess he creates thanks to his black daddy and D against his name.

  • johngbarker

    Don’t worry; the boys will be home for Christmas.

    • f1b0nacc1

      No no no….home before the leaves fall…

  • USNK2

    Why was Sultan Qaboos of Oman in Teheran?
    Is he filling the ‘Switzerland’ role between Iran and the GCC?
    fwiw, Iran is probably worried that Greater Kurdistan is going to emerge from the Syrian meltdown, and loss of Iranian Kurdistan would be a huge.

    • wigwag

      The Sultan was in Iran as an emissary of the Obama Administration to see if the Iranians were willing to make a deal with Obama on Syria; apparently they weren’t. More interestingly, at the same time the Sultan was there so was Jeffrey Feltman; Feltman was on exactly the same mission; to see if Khamanei was willing to cut a deal on pushing Assad out.

      Feltman’s presence is intriguing because he was recently appointed by Secretary General Ban ki-Moon as Under Secretary of Political Affairs at the United Nations. Feltman is an Obama loyalist who, until a few months ago, served in the Administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

      For better or worse, Obama tried to make a deal with Iran on Syria: he failed though he probably can’t be blamed for trying.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “We hope President Obama is in fact thinking bigger picture than he’s letting on, and that he has a broader regional strategy in mind.”

    Sending million dollar missiles to hit a camel in the a__, because of Obama’s wounded pride, is what this is all about. Leftists talk about how intelligent and talented Obama is, but would an intelligent and talented man with 5 years of experience still be making such stupid and obvious mistakes? There is no strategy, there is no plan, he has no clue how an attack will affect the balance between all the factions of the middle-east. And if by chance his attack weakens Assad enough that he falls, he hands Syria over to Al-Qaeda, the most ruthless of the Rebels. Yeah, that’s a wonderful plan, give a country in the middle of Arabia to Al-Qaeda where they can train and supply attacks across the borders to most of the nations of the middle east.

    • bpuharic

      The arrogant right wing killed 4400 US troops and blew a 2 trillion dollar hole in our budget. But they’re paranoid about Obama.

      Would a policy as intelligent as right wing foreign policy have filled the national cemeteries with bodies of dead soldiers while impoverishing the nation? Their strategy and plan was ‘nation building on the cheap’

      Right wing policies destroyed US credibility in the middle east and made it a rich and fertile territory for Al Qaida. With all their bluster about American power the right has shown the ONLY thing they’re good at is filling C141’s with flag draped coffins.

      • boldface

        Are you capable of thinking or do you just keep typing the same thing over and over again? yes, we get it, everyone who disagrees with Our Great Leader wants to see flag-draped coffins.

        • Fred

          No he’s not capable of thinking. But you almost have to envy the clarity of his world. People who disagree with his politics are the root of all evil. Just get rid of conservatives and watch Utopia arise. Must be nice sometimes to be that much of a simpleton.

          • bpuharic

            Sure would be nice if you right wingers, instead of regurgitating Hayek, Rand and other brain dead simpletons, would try to look at the world using data and logic

            Everyone who disagrees with you is a ‘socialist’. Progressives are the root of all evil. THe free market is infallible and can not be questioned

            It must be nice to live in such a simple world. It’s completely delusional…almost schizoid. And that’s what the American right calls ‘truth’.

          • boldface

            Wow, he actually made a comment without mentioning body bags and deficits. Instead we get his cartoonish, one-dimensional vituperation that sounds like it came out of the DNC’s fundraising emails. It’s really fascinating to note the complete inability to consider facts, data, nuance, principle or anything beyond “my side good, your side bad.” We should have a study done to see if there’s anything that can be done to solve this inability to have any but the most rudimentary half-formed thoughts.

          • bpuharic

            Data or principal? This from a movement that thinks Ayn Rand is the 2nd coming? Whose economic theories are those of supply side cartoons?

            Glad I have a sense of humor. You guys are a riot

  • lfstevens

    If Iran is such a big ally of Assad’s, why haven’t they sent troops to help him? If they haven’t so far, why would they now when they could so much more easily get destroyed by our very big feet?

    • Behind_You1

      They have.

      Iran will send 4,000 Revolutionary Guard troops to Syria to fight alongside Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces, The Independent reported on Sunday.

      The decision to send soldiers to Syria was taken last week prior to Friday’s Iranian presidential election which saw cleric Hassan Rohani defeat a number of more conservative candidates.

      The Independent quoted pro-Iranian sources as saying that Iran has proposed to open up a front against Israel on the Golan Heights as part of efforts to preserve Assad’s regime in Syria.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service