Division of Labor

So Iranian stooges have planned the Gaza and Lebanon-based kidnappings for quite a while, it seems.

Is Iran starting a war on their terms expecting us to flail about and respond ineffectively?

If so, let us not despair. Osama thought he could provoke us into an ineffective cruise missile barrage with his 9/11 attack and got waxed for his efforts. I hope his cave accommodations are to his liking. And in 2003, Saddam assumed he'd still be in one of his many palaces after enduring an aerial and half-hearted ground campaign that would stall at the gates of Baghdad. Now his spawn are dead and Saddam awaits the hangman's noose.

Just because Ahmadinejad may believe he wants this fight right now and on his initiative doesn't mean his judment is any better than Osama's or Saddam's.

And if Israel does see Iran and Syria as the enemy and not Lebanon or even Gaza, might not our looming fight with Iran provide us both with an opportunity to divide up the jobs?

Consider: We and Israel want to knock down the mullah regime in Iran over the nukes. We share the goal of getting Tehran to stop funding terrorists who strike Israel and Iraq. And we share the desire to stop Syria from being a launching pad for terrorists heading to attack Israel and our forces in Iraq.

Might we not divvy up the job? Why should Israel try to strike Iran far from home when we have forces all around Iran? And when Israeli involvement in Iran would certainly hinder an effort centered around American forces to overthrow the regime? Iranians may be pro-American and so can forgive us for freeing them, but forgiving Jews is probably not possible. And Arabs who'd forgive our attack on Persians might be less understanding if Stars of David fly over Iran. And Israel has long-standing plans to march on Damascus which would spare us the need to scrape up troops for that job.

So let us do the job in Iran with our NATO allies in whatever form we've hammered out with them to try diplomacy until even Euros cannot deny failure.

And let Israel, possibly with their Turkish ally, take down the Assad regime while tearing up Hizbollah in Lebanon and Syria.

And these two attacks complement each other. Syria without Iranian support is far weaker; and Iran without Syrian land close to Israel and Anbar is less of a threat, too.

Iran may think this is a good time to mess with us. But unless they have nukes already, they may truly be playing with fire.

And as long as I'm reaching for dots and connecting them, since one of Iran's responses to an attempt by us to overthrow their regime would be to unleash Hizbollah, could we have been waiting for an excuse to take down Hizbollah prior to regime change in Iran? Could this explain Israel's actions beyond air strikes that provide a cover for beginning mobilization? Could this explain our strong support for Israel in this battle when I would have expected some calls for calm? Could it explain Saudi Arabia's rather supportive statement?

It is easy to see how conspiracy theorists thrive. Grab a couple dots and explain links between them and voila! A neat explanation. But I don't have access to information that would provide equally valid explanations or anti-dots that would disprove this wild speculation.

But if we were planning to take down Iran's mullahs soon, this sure would make some sense. Were we and the Israelis waiting for some provocation to disarm one of Iran's weapons?

An interesting but completely speculative thought.

UPDATE: Let me clarify the "march on Damascus comment." It was a statement of capabilities and not action. I don't think we or the Israelis need to or should march on Damascus. Iran is the main threat and if they go down, Syria is all alone. So if we strike Iran, hitting Syria is effort not needed.

And it plays to Syria's least bad strength. Israel is supreme in the air and at sea so they should fight there. Israel would beat Syria on the ground, but it is here that Syria could inflict significant casualties while losing. Providing Israel a cover for mobilizing is more of a defensive move in my mind to make sure Israel's ground shield is strong enough to deter or defeat a Syrian offensive while the air and naval campaign hammers Syrian forces and Hizbollah targets. By mobilizing ground forces, the Israelis improve their capability to march toward Damascus after blunting any Syrian attack. And I doubt Syria could mount much of an offensive. It has been a long time since the Soviet Union propped up Syria's armed forces.

This fighting does seem like it has the opportunity to spread. Iran seems to welcome this chance to fight; Israel is doing things that I wouldn't have figured they'd do if this was just a strike to recover their soldiers; we are being far more verbally supportive of Israel given past calls for restraint in past crises; and the reported Saudi comments seem to indicate they are standing off.