The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have already brutally suppressed the "Green Revolution" in Tehran, and when it comes to brutality and fanaticism, they can teach even Bashar Assad a lesson. The Iranian regime combines fundamentalist Islam with militant warfare capacities - from a vast terror network, to the ongoing effort to produce nuclear weapons. They thrive on an ideology of hate, denying the Holocaust and Israel's right to exist, and seeing in the United States "the Great Satan."
They are also a tragedy to the Iranian people, to the continuum of the great Persian culture and civilization.
But even Tehran is concerned with the possibility of a regime change in Damascus, and with the crippling sanctions that affect the economy of Syria, an already very poor country.
The Tehran-Damascus-Beirut axis is thus in flux, and it is therefore critical how the world, led by the West and the United States, will act in relation to Assad's atrocities and Ahmadinejad's ambitions. From a moral and strategic point of view, the West and the United States cannot stand idly by, and have to move from words to deeds, in order to topple the Damascus tyrant.
Sanctions can not suffice. While a Security Council resolution is impossible, NATO, led by the United States, should initially declare a no-fly zone over Syria, arm the rebels and organize the opposition, as it has already begun to do in Tunis, with the Syrian National Council. In the second stage, the involvement of NATO's air forces in order to defeat Bashar's army should not be ruled out, nor should peacekeeping functions be ruled out in the aftermath. Some, even in Israel, are wary of such engagement, as they fear what and who will succeed Assad.
Nothing could be worse than the butchering of one's own people. Ask the people of Syria.
Such actions would be the beginning of the end of the Assad regime in Syria.
This would lead to a shift in the balance of forces, with Iran and Hezbollah weakened. A weaker and more isolated Tehran may then be more susceptible to international sanctions - a poor and isolated Iran may not alter its long-term ambitions, but it may be more open to engage diplomatically with the "five powers" group - to bring its nuclear program onto a slower path, with greater inspections and restrictions.
Attacking Iran should be a last resort; not an option for Israel at all, as this would be insufficient and too costly, but for the United States under Barack Obama. Following the Netanyahu-Obama meeting this week, Israel should, after having successfully brought about the prioritizing of the Iranian issue, stop being at the rhetorical forefront of the effort against Iran, and become a concerned and constructive partner in an international coalition led by the United States.
Israel, with the shifting of the balance of powers in the region, needs to pose itself critical questions of national security. This means engaging in a viable peace process with the Palestinians, after a settlement freeze, thus opening the route to Cairo and Ankara, necessary partners in the unfolding power puzzle. It is time for the international community and Israel to stop thinking simply of bilateral deterrence, which is insufficient, and to begin thinking on how to structure a new regional coalition and balance of power, in favor of modernization, greater democratization and freedom, and regional peaceful coexistence. This will serve as an answer to both the shifting positions in the Tehran-Damascus axis, and the shifting sands of the Arab Spring. The solution does not not lie exclusively in our military might, but in the degree of our policy wisdom, something that has so far been noticeably lacking.
