Assad Changes Focus toward Israel

http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=95690&cid=23&fromval=1&frid=23&seccatid=20&s1=1

Here is part of the transcript of Assad's interview.I believe it was with Press TV, which is an Iranian outfit, but this account comes from Al Manar, which is Hezbollah's media arm.

What I find interesting is Assad's attempt to connect the Syrian rebels with Israel, and the forces of "resistance" to Israel with support for Assad.

I reassure that the battle, the developments in Al-Qusayr, and all the wail we hear are related to "Israel". They want to strangle the resistance. This old-new battle takes in each time a different shape. Now, the important thing is not Al-Qusayr as a city, but the borders. They want to strangle the resistance by land and sea, and here lies a question. It is said that the resistance should direct its arms at the enemy, hence at the South. This was said in May, 7 when some agents for Israel in Lebanon tried to meddle in the resistance's communication network. They said that the resistance shifted its weapons to the inside. They said the same thing about the Syrian Army. They said that the Syrian Army should fight on the borders with Israel. We clearly said that the army is fighting the enemy wherever he is present. When the enemy is in the North, or comes to the North, we move towards the North or the East or the West. The same applies to the resistance. Why is Hezbollah present on the borders in Lebanon or in Syria? Because the battle is against the Israeli enemy and its agents in Syria or in Lebanon.

In  other words, Assad's strategy is simple and hardly novel: BLAME THE JEWS!

And it may work! If the IDF strikes weapons being turned over to Hezbollah, it will reinforce Assad's point. It reminds me of 1991 when the US launched Desert Storm's air campaign and Saddam Hussein promptly fired Scuds into Israel, hoping for their response.

The way the Bush administration avoided that trap was to take up the Scud hunting campaign to preempt Israeli action.  But will Obama do the same this time, or will he stand by as the IDF strikes?

As I've said before, there is no clear and easy answer for Obama in this crisis. But he needs to do something, and not try to "lead from behind." The Syrian crisis is much larger than Syria. It now is linked to the Iranian nuclear issue, stability in Iraq and Lebanon, US-Russia relations, and the possibilities of some larger regional war. The Iranians and Russians are doing everything they can to place Obama in a difficult position. I suspect that they have concluded that he will not act, and they can get away with whatever they want to do in Syria. The worst they'll face will be US and UN protestations and unenforced red lines.

If Obama did decide to take action, with whom would he take it? Clearly, the Russians and Chinese would veto any UN action. NATO is divided, with the Canadians and the Germans against action. So if Obama did decide to do something, he'd have to resort to a "coalition of the willing" to go along with him, primarily France, Great Britain, and the Gulf Arabs. And that is his best case.