Even serious commentators are occasionally incomprehensible. This has become particularly apparent in the last few days when it comes to utterances about the Syria-Iran connection.
Take the Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart, for example, who the other day tweeted: “what does an attack on Syria do to America’s chances of negotiating w/ Rouhani?”
Then there’s Matt Duss from the Center for American Progress, who responded to a WSJ piece headlined “Syria Strike Could Dash Hopes for Iran Talks” by tweeting: “Worth noting that ‘dashing hopes for Iran talks’ is a shared interest of both Iranian and US hardliners.”
Are they so desperate to give Hassan Rouhani a chance that they’re willing to sacrifice the lives of Syrians – or anyone else, for that matter?
We’re not questioning, of course, that a link exists between the Syria and Iran issues – just not in the way Beinart & Co. presented it. We’re much more in step with Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and Camille Grande from the French think-tank FRS, who’ve emphasized that Tehran must oppose Syria’s use of chemical weapons precisely because it was victimized by this weapon in the past.
Beyond the moral element, there’s the over-arching strategic aspect of the Syria-Iran link. The WP‘s David Ignatius expands on this in his recent op-ed, in which he flags possible IRGC-Quds Force involvement in the Syrian chemical attack, adding:
Unfortunately, history tells us that an ambitious, revolutionary nation such as Iran makes compromises only under duress. U.S. action against Assad may not deter the Iranians, but it will at least make them think twice about crossing Obama’s “red line” against their acquiring nuclear weapons.
Apropos, yesterday the IAEA reiterated that the centrifuges – including the more advanced kind – are indeed spinning. FYI.