The United States under President Trump is contemplating whether to strike the Assad regime after its usage of chemical weapons in the Damascus suburb Douma this past week.

The first and obvious option for the president is to follow up on the promise he made when he tweeted “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!” on April 11th.

The United States has the backing of a strong and willing coalition to push forward a military option which includes France, the United Kingdom and even Saudi Arabia. Other leaders, like German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated, “Germany will not take part in military action, but we see and support that everything is done to send a signal that his use of chemical weapons is not acceptable.” Germany’s participation in a possible strike may come in other means. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated “we are not looking to be present in Syria.” Turkey’s response is a contradictory one: Prime Minister Binali Yildirim responded to the US-Russian spat as “street fighting” and continued on to say “They are fighting like street bullies. But who is paying the price? It’s civilians.” Turkey has very little credibility when it comes to protecting civilians, especially in Syria. The Turkish state just completed its illegal and aggressive air and ground campaign in northwest Syria in the predominately Kurdish canton of Afrin, which to date has a consequence of nothing short of a humanitarian crisis, Turkification process and ethnic cleansing.

From the time the President publicized his intentions to strike Syria, Assad forces vacated possible areas of targets such as airports, military air bases and outposts. Iranian proxies under the IRGC mainly Hezbollah have also dispersed critical zones that the US may see as fair game. Russian reactions to the president’s tweet were clear, “smart missiles should fly towards terrorists, not towards the lawful government.” However, the West does not see the Assad regime as the lawful or legitimate government.

The second option President Trump has at his disposal is the diplomatic leverage the US can use towards Russia due to the pressure of a possible military strike- Russia’s commitment in Syria is deeply rooted in its military presence along the Mediterranean, not with the Assad regime. The United States can guarantee to Russia it can maintain its bases without US interference, and in return the Trump administration can demand the full ousting of the Assad regime and the removal of all Iranian proxies inside Syria including IRGC and Hezbollah.

A full-blown US strike on Syria can devastate the Assad regime, especially as he is close enough to declare victory in the seven-year civil war. A banishment of the regime from Syria is a swap Russia can tolerate because it simply does not have the appetite to be driven into a whole new war against the United States. The removal of Iranian proxies and their military bases will prove to the extent Russia truly controls Syria, if at all. With Assad and its Iranian allies out of the picture, Israel too will feel more secure and less reluctant to convince President Trump to strike.

Photo: Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

Originally Published: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/US-options-on-Syria-to-strike-or-not-549742

Read More →

Since the historic recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by President Trump on December 6, 2017, and the president’s pledge to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, many have suggested that the Israel-U.S. relationship has entered a new era.

Trump expressed his feelings about the renewed relationship between the two countries during a recent interview with Israel Hayom.  In response to the question, “Would you say that our nations are closer than ever before?,” the president stated, “I think they are probably as good as they have ever been.”

Since the beginning of his term, Trump and his administration have demonstrated their unwavering support for our one democratic ally in the Middle East. The administration withheld $65 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) due to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) refusal to engage in peace talks; condemned the PA’s “pay for slay” program, which financially rewards terrorists and families of terrorists held in Israeli prison; and withdrew from the United Nations’ Cultural and Educational Agency (UNESCO), due to its anti-Israel biases. And recent reports claim that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had unprecedented discussions with the U.S. about Israel annexing Judea and Samaria – the West Bank – although the U.S. subsequently denied having these discussions.

In reference to such claims, Sarah Stern, the founder and president of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), said, “After a quarter of a century of pretending that they will one day make peace, while the Palestinian Authority continues to incite their people towards terrorism and Jihad, we think it’s a very important move by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to start talking about the legality of the settlement movement with the White House.”

This administration has taken commendable actions long overdue by the United States, and the president recognizes what many of his predecessors did not – the Palestinian leadership simply does not want peace. The P.A. continues to incite its people to violence, glorify and reward terrorism; demonize Jews and Israel; and refuses to recognize the State of Israel. The Palestinian leadership has been offered generous peace deals numerous times, including in 2000, 2005, and 2008, and rejected each one, instead responding with terror attacks against innocent civilians.

P.A. president Mahmoud Abbas recently stated that the Palestinians would not accept the U.S. as a broker for peace negotiations, calling the U.S. a “dishonest mediator.” Abbas, in response to the president’s Jerusalem announcement, said, “Jerusalem is and will forever be the capital of the Palestinian state,” and added that the P.A. will not recognize any previous agreements it made between the U.S. and Israel since the 1990s Oslo Accords.

Now that Israel is preparing its air defense in the North, following what some call a war which began on Saturday between Israel and Iran, it is critical that the U.S. stand by its ally. Iran infiltrated Israeli air space with a drone, which was then intercepted by Israel, in what was Iran’s first direct military operation against the Jewish State. Israel rightly retaliated Iran’s violation of its sovereignty with strikes against Iranian drone installations in Syria. One Israeli F-16 was abandoned by its pilots over Israel, following “massive Syrian anti-air fire,” according to reports.

Following the incident, Israel was met with overwhelming support by the United States. “Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, and we support its right to defend itself from the Iranian-backed Syrian and militia forces in southern Syria,” the White House said.

Pentagon spokesman said, “Israel is our closest security partner in the region and we fully support Israel’s inherent right to defend itself against threats to its territory and its people.”

The administration’s record of support for Israel, in words, and more importantly, in actions, is a far cry from the Obama administration’s continuous disrespect towards the Jewish State and Netanyahu for eight years.

The events of the weekend are a reminder to the world that Israel is willing to do whatever it needs to defend its sovereignty. And thankfully, this time around, there is someone sitting in the Oval Office that is willing to stand by her during her time of need.

Originally Published: http://thenationaldiscourse.com/new-era-us-israel-relationship-1568/

Read More →

As Americans turn their attention to the war against the Islamic State group, an old enemy is, no doubt, delighted that they are turning their attention away from it, as Iran races to enrich as much uranium and produce as much plutonium as it can, and finish the missile delivery system for a nuclear weapon before the looming Nov. 24 deadline.

It was recently learned that the P5+1 nations (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) are trying to come up with some formulation to enable the Iranians to offer them yet another extension so that they can save face, and never go back on their vow not to weaken their nuclear capabilities.
However, it is the American face that truly needs saving.

Read More →

Can We Stop Iran From Going Nuclear?

The Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) has just launched a major internet Ad campaign, in order to refocus world attention on the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. Ever since the Iran Nuclear Interim Deal was announced in November of 2013, EMET has strongly opposed it. The deal gives Iran relief from crippling economic sanctions in return for almost nothing of any real significance, leaving Iran’s nuclear infrastructure almost totally intact. Iran keeps every one of its 19,000 centrifuges spinning and is able to continue to construct more. While caps will be placed on Iran’s ability to enrich, the deal will do nothing to prevent it from expanding its stockpile of uranium, which means that Iran will emerge from the Iran Nuclear Interim Deal closer to its goal of a nuclear weapon.

Read More →