It's Not 2001 Anymore.

Last August, David Feith, a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal penned an op-ed describing how the President Obama allowed the UN to tie his hands in dealing with Syria.

Mr. Feith criticizes the Obama Administration for not leveraging the opportunity to weaken the Iranian regime by taking stronger action against Syria. However, what he suggests - various methods of intervention - is predicated upon a false understanding of why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place.
 The view from Tehran is stark. With very little effort, the United States was able to topple regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To the Iranian regime, nuclear weapons are the only way to deter Western efforts of regime change. In light of this, stronger Western action against Syria is likely to heighten Iranian paranoia and embolden its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, not diminish it. Intervention in Syria makes the Iranian problem worse, not better.

Moreover, Russia and China – anxious about the survival of their own autocratic regimes – look upon Western efforts with suspicion. The U.S. needs Russian and Chinese cooperation to manage the threats posed from Iran, North Korea, and a litany of other international security issues. If the U.S. and the West act decisively against the Assad regime, Russia and China are less inclined to cooperate later on.

Ousting Assad is not worth compromising more important foreign policy goals. The world is a better place without Muammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and the Taliban, but it is also a different place – it’s not 2001 anymore.