“Syria may move away from Iran (and toward Turkey) because the Baath regime in Damascus is secular to its core — and mistrusts the religious fervor of the mullahs.”

Then why the hell did Syria ever ally itself with Iran in the first place? You hear this kind of stuff all the time from smug know-nothings pretending to be know-it-alls, that different religious factions cannot be allied in the ME. Those opposing OIF use this all the time, putting everything through a Sunni vs. Shia prism. First it was the war was a mistake because Iraqi Sunnis and Shia would never form a government, now they’re claiming Iraqi Shia are 100% allied with Iran.

These morons are too dense to see the patent irony of ME politics. Yes, many of the conflicts (Muslim vs. Muslim as well as Muslim vs. Jew) are caused by religious fanaticism and intolerance. But at the same time any of these opposing factions will turn around and ally themself with their once-mortal enemy if it is in their interest. Syria is allied with Iran because they perceive it to be beneficial to them, and as long as they believe that I promise you Assad will not give a flying f*ck about what kind of crackpots the mullahs are.

Missed opportunities. Now it will take a war to depose the Assad crime family. And there is no one who will do it.

What I meant is that, ceteris paribus, as one country’s level of deterrence increases, their ability to make peace with their enemies also increases. In other words, strength brings peace. Liberals believe somehow that weakness brings peace (see, e.g., unilateral disarmament). For Ignatius to say that Israel increasing its deterrence “oddly enough” increases its ability to make peace with hostile regimes is, well, why I said that he clearly doesn’t understand what he writes about. Ah well, he’s only a Washington Post columnist.