Palmyra, Syria

Source: Shutterstock

“I would integrate our forces within a regional army. There is no other way to defend this nation than some of us being on the ground over there doing the fighting.”

Wednesday, The Washington Post laid out the game plan for war on Syria. While we cannot create a NATO with kings, emirs, sheiks, and sultans, says the Post,

“[T]here is a way that Mr. Obama could serve both the U.S. interests and those of the Gulf allies: by attacking the Middle East’s most toxic, and destabilizing force, the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria. Syria’s dictatorship is Iran’s closest ally in the region, and its barbarity opened the way for the rise of the Islamic State. Recently, it has suffered battlefield reverses, in part because of increased Gulf aid to rebel forces.

“If Mr. Obama were to … create safe zones in northern and southern Syria for the rebels, the balance could be tipped against Damascus and Tehran—and U.S. allies would have tangible reason to recommit to U.S. leadership.”

Consider what is being recommended here.

The Post wants Obama to bomb a Syrian nation that has not attacked us, without congressional authorization—to aid rebels whose most effective fighters are al-Qaida and ISIS terrorists.

And we’re to fight this war—to nullify ultra-rich but unhappy Gulf Arabs?

Obama must also “do more about Iranian aggression,” says the Post.

But against whom is Iran committing aggression?

In Syria, Iran is backing a regime we recognized until a few years ago, that is under attack by terrorist rebels we detest. In Iraq, Iran is backing the government we support, against ISIS rebels we detest.

Bottom line: A U.S. attack on Syria is being pushed by the War Party to propel us into a confrontation with Iran, and thereby torpedo any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran.

Cui bono? For whose benefit?