I suspect that Trump was simply taking the path of least resistance when he bombed Syria last week. After all, while the attacks served to spank Assad for using poison gas, little permanent seems to have been accomplished. However, it did serve to at least notionally meet the demands of those who want us to involve ourselves further in Syria while at the same time avoiding pushing either Russia, Iran, or Hezbollah too far.
However, the Israel Lobby appears to have had more or less the opposite outcome in mind. In his criticism of Trump’s attack on Syria in The Atlantic, Eliot Cohen argues that Trump’s attack was grossly inadequate:
‘…In this case it would have been air attacks to smash the Syrian air-defense system, destroy helicopters and aircraft, and above all kill a good number of the men who conducted these attacks and the men who ordered them. It would probably have killed some Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah militia members too. Not proportionally, even then, but something closer to justice, and more importantly, a use of force with a sound strategic purpose…’
But…jeepers. That would bring us into conflict with Iran and Hezbollah.
…and I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Eliot Cohen is a prominent Neo-Con, and one of the founders of the ‘Project for an New American Century.’
Postscript. It turns out that mighty warrior for Israel, Senator Graham, is dissatisfied as well.
Obviously, Master wants more.
P.P.S. In case anything’s unclear, the Jerusalem Post had definitely put on the war paint. Some headlines from the 4/17 web page:
‘Top Pilot: Israel capable of Striking Iran if Orders Given.’
‘Israel planning for direct retaliatory strike from Iran.’
‘Netanyahu: Israel on guard against Iranian terror attacks on diplomats.’