The Best Way to Stop an Iranian Nuclear Weapon is to let Syria fester

Over the last week there has been an increasing cacophony of calls for aiding the rebels in Syria not just diplomatically, but militarily in a fashion similar to that of our recent Libya campaign. The primary justifications are the nebulous "responsibility to protect", a totalitarian notion that will be discussed elsewhere, and the assertion that liberating Syria will undermine Iran.

This sounds logical, and the loss of its ally in Syria would cost Iran. However, it is not black and white. Russia and China are backing both Iran and Syria. Both have protecting Syria in the UN. Russia has a port in Syria has ships off Syria in a show of force. Would these fire on NATO warplanes; probably not. But, there will be repercussions. Depriving them of Syria will only make their ties with Iran closer, making any move to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon that much harder. Compared to the increase in power and prestige that come with nuclear weapons, the loss of Syria is a pittance to Iran.


If the benefit of overthrowing Assad is questionable, what are its costs? For all the cute "liberal" intelligentsia put up by Western foreigners as the spokesmen of the rebellions, the fact remains that the most organized contingent is the Muslim Brotherhood. If Syria falls to the Sunni majority, the leadership will go to the Muslim Brotherhood just as it has in Algeria, Libya and Egypt. It is no co-incidence that Al Qaeda has come out in support of the Syrian opposition. Are we to wage war for Al Qaeda in Syria as we did in Libya? Shall we blithely hand over Damascus, home to two caliphates, to the fundamentalist Sunnis who wish to create a new one?
In the name of human rights, are we going to help the Syrian Salafis and other angry Sunnis slaughter Alawites, Druze and Christians, just as we helped the Libyan Salafists settled their ethnic grievances, and the Egyptian Salafis to kill Coptic Christian and formally re-impose Dhimmitude upon them? What of President Al-Assad's threat to attack Israel if NATO attacks Syria alone or with the help of Hizbollah? Will NATO be forced to bomb Hezbollah to protect Israel, or will Israel respond angering the Muslim world? And what happens if Al-Assad uses one of his weapons of mass destruction? The price for Israel would then be an end to deterrence or a nuclear response. The implications of that are mortifying, not least of which would be a justification for an Iranian nuclear weapon program and a Saudi and Egyptian one as well.


So in exchange for helping the Muslim Brotherhood encircle Israel and helping Al Qaeda take another state, Israel will be attacked and Russia and China may seek stronger ties to Iran and Iran's nuclear program would be protected.

As callous as it may sound, the best option for the US is to do nothing. The worse the situation becomes in Syria, the harder it becomes for the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda to work with Iran. In fact, the more bloodshed there is between the Muslim Brotherhood and any Iranian Quds militia operating in Syria, the less the proverbial Arab (Sunni) Street will care about US and NATO actions to pre-empt Iran's nuclear program.

Why I am not a Paleoconservative
Paleoconservatism is not a coherent ideology and never has been. It is a mixture of traditionalists, revolutionaries and libertarians joined to oppose neoconservatives. Their "raison d'etre" was the M.E. Bradford Affair and having been founded at a Randolph Society meeting in the late 1980s their entire enterprise has been a historical revision. There is nothing "paleo" about a movement formed over a set of grievances from the 1970s until today. But just as revisionism is their mode, grievance is there core. It is not different than black nationalists or Jewish leftists who support foreign immigration despite the damage that this does both to their own rational self interest and that of the country. Historical facts or future damage are all irrelevant, because for all the rhetoric of some of the more rational members, they are driven by grievance and feeling.

This is why we have:

Jeffersonians and Neo-confederates enamored with Hamiltonian-Lincolnian tariffs to protect industries.

We have people who oppose Hispanic immigration becoming hysterical over Islamists or at least illegal alien Arabs being rounded up. Those who want secure borders and an end to employment of illegals hysterical over verifiable identity cards.

Defenders of European cultures and nationalisms defending the slow-jihad of Muslim minorities in Europe.

People who called Ike a communist or at least excoriated his foreign policy now in love with him.

Those who oppose a New World Order, defending UN Treaties and rulings as the arbiter of American foreign policy.

Those who once supported a strong military declare us unable to defend against Fourth-generational warfare.

Those who were once anti-Communists now enamored with Putin and supporting Russia and China's attempts to undermine U.S. policy.

The self-proclaimed intellectual heirs of the "Old China hands" now opposing support for Taiwan.

And those who called for us to stand fast against communist agitprop calling for us to give into the reasonable demands of Islamists.

Paleoconservatives are not anti-Semites so much as people blinded by their own crude parody of damaging behavior and beliefs of leftist Jews. However driven by grievance politics, blinded by anger, and caught in a sounding room with the far-left they are not only embracing "stabbed-in the-back" type theories but are accepting open anti-Semites. After 2001, they had to to decide whether they love America and the West more than they hate Israel and everything they read into it. Far too many made the immoral choice.