Do you know what the irony is? Syria's leaders are mostly Alawi- a minority and off-shot sect of Shi'ism that even the Shias reject as their own. Sunnis are the majority in Syria, which is a country ruled by the minority (is that a rule of Baa'thism?).

The US/UN could support the Sunnis because they detest the Alawis whose only purpose is to cause trouble with the Sunnis in the northern region around Lattakia, but that might not be taken the right way considering the Sunnis feel they are the "underdogs" of Iraq.

Sanctions would normally be the first attack on a regime like that in Syria, but they probably wouldn't do much good. Pssst, here's a secret: Syria has already been living under sanctions for more than 20 years. They have learned to be pretty much self-sufficient. The black market is already an established and a wide-spread institution. The smuggling routes are ancient. And in spite of what most "official" sources say, Syria has oil. Not a lot, but it has been drilling and strategically storing its own for decades. Like a well-stocked castle, it could weather a sanction seige.

Assassination would be the best route of getting rid of the Syria problem, but you'd have to knock off all the old guys from Hafez's regime and let Bashar stand. He is weak and could easily be manipulated. Forgive him his sin in Lebanon, lots of other rulers do worse. Remember that the majority of Syria's population (the Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Kurds, Armenians and Russians) wanted change when Bashar came into power (5 years ago?), but it was the old regime which frustrated it. For the sake of stability you'd have to leave Bashar in. Give him an ultimatum: the US/UN helps him gain control of his own country (and gains control over the border and "terrorist" groups) and he cooperates, or else he can go to the grave along with all of his dad's buddies and Syria will be given to Israel.

And by all means, if Syria turns on its military, make the Israelis fight their own war- it is rediculous for US troops to be fighting alone when Israel has the same equipment, much of the same training, and the most practice in dealing with terrorists.

I don't know what Turkey's official stand is concerning Syria, but I can imagine that they would not be happy with anything that resembles what happened in Iraq. Giving the Kurds any kind of power in Syria could potentially de-stable Turkey.

It is interesting to think: which should go first, Syria or Iran? If you knock off Syria first it could isolate Iran, but not vice-versa. Who would stand longer? Syria is puny compared to Iran, but it is the Iranians who are more outspoken against their regime, and the youth have a lot of collective energy which could be used to topple it. However, anything done in Iran could anger the Shias in Iraq. However, if you attack Syria then Iran and possibly Egypt could come to its aid, but there is no movement inside Syria to support to help get rid of its regime. Who would fight longer?

While I agree with your analysis- the crux of the problem is one word: IRAN. If we take out the Iranian threat, the Assad regime either voluntarily or not will end. No need for military action against Damascus, the political capital must be spent on Isfahan and Teheran. Assad can not stand alone- knock out the support he gets from the Mullahs and he is done. Our focus must be on stopping the Iranian nuclear program. Check out the best blog on Lebanon and Syria out there: Across the Bay Blog.

Well, I would preface my remarks, Mr. President, with this: Iran is the larger and the more immediate threat. Under no circumstances can we allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, even if the only way to prevent this is a preemtive strike, if necessary with nuclear weapons of our own. The stakes are simply too great, the chances of Iran passing a nuclear weapon to al-qaida too severe.

Short of a preemtive nuclear strike, there is little we can do to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. A conventional invasion of Iran, even if the goal was only to smash the current theocratic regieme and nothing more, would require a multiple-division assault - something we simply cannot do with our forces tied down in Iraq.

Sanctions against an energy-producing country are quite useless, as we have seen with Iraq.

Conventional bombing of all known nuclear sites would at best only delay Iran's nuclear ambitions - perhaps only by a matter of months. In any event, given the large scale and dispersed nature of Iran's nuclear program, any military action short of full scale invasion or nuclear strike is likely to fail.

Diplomatic efforts with Europe and the UN will continue to accomplish nothing.

So: Either we do what we must, or we will have to accept the probability of a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil in the near future. There is no third option.

Mr. President, we await your orders.

Certainly Iran is Syria's biggest supporter, but what about Egypt and Turkey?

I forgot one thing- what should be done about France? They're the ones supporting and supplying the nuclear program in Iran. What if whatever the US does backfires and the same is done to the US for supporting India? I'm sure China isn't so pleased with some of its neighbors (India and Pakistan), and Russia's instinct is to support old friends (Iran and Syria). This could turn into a can of worms.

Nuking Iran doth not a Syria policy make.

Chester: OK, point taken.

So, assuming we have the forces available, we could and should do the following:

1. Seal the Syria Iraq border with minefields and other barriers, backed by the necessary covering forces. (Say, a couple of US divisions backed by as many Iraqi forces as can be spared from terror hunting and other duties).

2. Assemble a large scale raiding force of at least one heavy (tank) division.

3. Convince (bribe?) Turkey into closing their border with Syria.

4. Issue a set of demands to Assad: Cease all support for terrorism, dismantle the terror bases in the Bekaa valley (under US supervision), hand over all terror supporter, Iraqi Baathist holdouts, and terror trainers, propagandists, financiers, etc; still in Syria, hand over whatever WMD's if any that Saddam smuggled to Syria before the war. IF Assad agrees, fine, we win.

5. IF Assad does not agree:

A. Have the Navy Blockade the Syrian coast.
B. Have the Air Force destroy Assad's air defence nets, airbases, missile bases, ammunition depots, etc.
C. Start attacking all known terror bases in Syrian soil unilaterally by air and send in the armored division for a series of raids to destroy terror bases with 200 miles of the Iraqi border.

Continue the above until we are sure Syrian support for terrorism is no longer a factor or until Assad agrees to our terms, whichever comes first. Historically, Syria only stopped supporting the Kurdish PPK terrorists when Turkey mobilized on their border and threatened war. We will at a minimum have to do more since our "quagmire" in Iraq has very likely convince Assad he faces no threat from us.

AS Syrian President, there are two options, staying in office or not. once you split the two choices a number of other options come quickly to light. Stay in office: 1. It's possible the US may do nothing to me in the near future other than a few sanctions, sanctions shmanctions, so some of my people suffer. 2. If I stay in office what countries will support me, there are too many links to the assination of the Ex-Lebanese president for many to openly support me. Even my friend France openly condems the assisination (but that doesn't mean i loose their support) 3. If i stay in office, make sure I have a good escape plan and a few secret accounts are opened. Also keep an eye on my buddies from Saddam's regime who fled, when they start to leave, its time to go. 4. If i stay in office I know my Military won't stand for long against the US, dispearse as much material and manpower to ensure another underground movement can start at a moments notice and tie down more US troops. 5. The UN may jump about an try to prove they still matter on the world stage, this boils down to sanctions and not much more, the US and Britian compose most of their effective military power so any action will come from them. and If I leave office, can't stay in Syria long term. Looks like a nice villa in the south of France.

Battle and John,

Excellent thoughts. I'll comment more in-depth tonight.

Actually, I changed my mind. I don't want to comment in-depth yet. That would kind of defeat the purpose of the post. I'd like to see what else springs up . . .

Now of course riots are taking place all over France for the 12th night which should keep them busy. The Iranian's have opened up talks to avoid imminent action on their nuclear issue. This is sort of like "The battle plan goes out the window when you make contact with the enemy" What next the Syrian President Resigning and turn himself over to the UN.