Although it is difficult to imagine that the Obama administration would take any such action, which is bound to upset the Iranian regime, Daniel Serwer argues that American aerial strikes on Hizballah forces in Syria would accomplish much both strategically and diplomatically:
Hizballah’s fighters have enabled Assad to make progress against his opponents, especially those associated with the Free Syrian Army fighters backed by the United States. That progress has hardened Assad’s negotiating stance and blocked the search for a political solution. Assad is winning, and he sees no reason to accept a transition away from his rule. . . . . A shift in the military balance is [thus] essential to ending the war. . . .
[Unlike Russia, Iran, or the Assad regime itself], Hizballah is a non-state actor. It is also a U.S.-designated terrorist group that has [killed hundreds of] Americans, among many others. . . .
U.S. targeting of Hizballah would send a strong but still limited message to the Syrian opposition and its allies in Turkey and the Persian Gulf: we are prepared to attack Shiite as well as Sunni terrorists, but it’s up to you to take advantage of the opportunity and come to the negotiating table ready to reach a serious political settlement. It would also send a strong but likewise limited message to Iran and Russia: we will not continue to tolerate your intervention in Syria without responding. The time for a political settlement is now. . . .
In short, [attacking Hizballah] would mostly please and embolden Washington’s friends and discomfit its antagonists. It would also reassert U.S. commitment to fighting terrorism of all sorts, renew Washington’s commitment to holding Hizballah accountable, hasten an end to the Syrian civil war, and make a political settlement more likely.
More about: Hizballah, Iran, Politics & Current Affairs, Russia, Syrian civil war, U.S. Foreign policy