The Obama administration, writes Frederic Hof, has thus far “not defended a single . . . civilian from the Assad-Russia-Iran onslaught” that is responsible for the majority of the human suffering in Syria. Addressing questions about this policy last week, Press Secretary Joshua Earnest insisted that the 2003 invasion of Iraq somehow proves that any intervention against Bashar al-Assad and his backers would be futile. Hof comments:

[T]he administration’s policy toward Assad Syria (as opposed to Islamic State Syria) rests on its desire to accommodate Iran—a full partner in Assad’s collective-punishment survival strategy—so that the July 14, 2015 nuclear agreement can survive the Obama presidency. . . .

According to Earnest, “We’ve got a test case just over the border in Iraq about what the consequences are for the United States implementing a regime-change policy and trying to impose a military solution on the situation. . . . [T]here are some people who suggest that somehow the United States should invade Syria.”

Shame on a news media that consistently permits this dissembling to go unchallenged. Earnest, if asked, would be unable to name anyone counseling the invasion of Syria. Earnest would be unable, if asked, to explain why limited military measures designed to end Assad’s mass-murder free ride—such as that offered by the 51 dissenting State Department officers—amounts to “regime change” and “trying to impose a military solution.” Indeed, if challenged, Earnest would be required to retract his subsequent false claim that no critic of the president’s Syria policy has ever offered specific, operationally feasible alternatives to a catastrophe-producing approach.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”