A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Tonight I watched two heavies on PBS and read below. I am still unconvinced: Why Obama Is Being Pulled Into Syrian Conflict - The Most Important Reason Can Be Summarized in One Word: Iran

Gerald Seib writes in The Wall Street Journal:

 

After two years of trying hard to avoid involvement in a conflict that he fears could easily become a long-term quagmire, that has little popular appeal at home, and that his own Pentagon chiefs have essentially called a losing proposition, President Barack Obama stands on the edge of a military commitment in Syria.

 

The reasons the situation has come to this are many and varied, but the most complex one can be summarized in one word: Iran.

As the force behind the Syrian regime, Iran is the country most responsible for fueling the regime's fight, and the nation whose influence will be most enhanced if President Bashar al-Assad prevails.

Of more immediate concern, Iran also is the country with a dangerous nuclear program, and therefore the one most prone to draw the wrong conclusions if Syria's alleged use last week of its own weapon of mass destruction—chemical arms—stands unchallenged.

The Iran factor, in short, is the elephant in the room, creating an exquisite dilemma for a president who might otherwise find plenty of good reasons to keep his distance.

The Syrian fight and the killing and displacement of civilians it has wrought present big humanitarian concerns, as did the conflict in Rwanda in the 1990s. Syria's fight also presents big worries about who holds the balance of power in an important region, as did the conflict in Kosovo in the same decade. In Rwanda, the concerns didn't prompt U.S. military involvement; in Kosovo, they did, in the form of a 77-day NATO air campaign.

But largely because of Iran's role, Syria's conflict falls into a different category, one in which America's global interests are engaged. Syria has become essentially a proxy war pitting an Iranian-led axis—Iran, President Assad and their allies in the Hezbollah movement—against virtually everybody else in the Middle East.

What now makes it a broader question is the move of weapons of mass destruction to the center of the conflict. Monday's declaration by Secretary of State John Kerry that the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its own people is "undeniable" will make it harder to avoid at least the perception of linkage to the even more serious struggle to contain Iran's nuclear program.

Mr. Obama has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Syria to use chemical weapons, just as he has said it wouldn't be acceptable for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. He now must ponder whether the credibility of the first statement will affect the credibility of the second. That question burns particularly hot as the administration considers entering nuclear talks with the government of Iran's new president, Hasan Rouhani, even as Iran continues to deny it has nuclear-arms ambitions.

At the same time, if American force ultimately helps oust Mr. Assad, that outcome might merely increase Iran's sense of isolation and fuel its desire for a nuclear weapon as a kind of security blanket.

All those considerations will be cranked into American decision-making on whether to launch a cruise missile strike against Syrian targets. Such a strike would be limited, designed to make the point that chemical weapons use comes at a price, rather than aimed to magically turn the military tide against Mr. Assad. Still, even a limited action would involve considerable short-term and long-run risks.

In a letter sent a few days ago to Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, who had asked for an analysis of military options in Syria, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, bluntly analyzed the effects of military action. He said that while the U.S. has the ability to knock out Syrian air power with limited strikes, such a move would do little to clean up the Syrian mess.

"It is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and violent struggles for power will continue after Assad's rule ends," he wrote. "We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options in this context."

Any action would carry immediate risks. Tensions with Russia, Syria's other big benefactor, would rise instantly. The chances of terrorism directed by Syria's allies against American targets would increase. Any military escalation carries the danger of expanding the war around the region.

Similarly, the long-term risks that have persuaded Mr. Obama to try to stay on the sidelines are no less real now than before. The president's biggest concerns have been twofold: First, when the U.S. gets involved in such a conflict, it would be expected to inject enough force to prevail. It's hard for a superpower to get involved halfway in any conflict. Again, the question of credibility would arise.

Second, once the U.S. wades in, it's more likely than any other country to own the mess that would follow a victory—defined here as the downfall of President Assad's regime. The forces trying to take his place include many unappetizing Islamists who share few other interests with the U.S.

Sorting through the rubble could take years.