Why Syria and not Iran?

Submitted by Mladen Andrijasevic (Israel), Aug 29, 2013 at 15:51

Why Syria and not Iran?

Since the Iranian nuclear threat is a few orders of magnitude greater than the Syrian chemical threat, the US and Britain are concentrating on the wrong country and avoiding the real issue - that the mutually assured destruction doctrine MAD is inapplicable to Iran.

So the real question is why Syria and not Iran? Because, as Churchill used to say of Attlee, Obama is a sheep in sheep's clothing.

Bernard Lewis:

In this context, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, namely M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) , would have no meaning. At the End of Time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter is the final destination of the dead-- hell for the infidels, and the delights of heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...

Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored?

http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-are-bernard-lewiss-views-on-mad.html

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".