Because standing opposed to Assad and his Hezbollah and Iranian protectors is al-Qaeda.
Last week, we were regaled with news analyses and stories about how the al-Qaeda forces fighting Assad are now splintering. According to breathless, detailed reports, the "moderate" al- Qaeda group, the Nusra Front, is being overwhelmed by the "extremist" al-Qaeda in Iraq faction. The latter has moved into Syria and is taking over operations, much to the consternation of their moderate Syrian al-Qaeda brothers.
But on second thought, since both the Nusra guys and the al-Qaeda in Iraq guys are loyal to al-Qaeda boss Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Zawahiri told the al-Qaeda in Iraq fellows to move to Syria, and since al-Qaeda in Iraq formed and financed the Nusra Front, it is not at all clear that anyone is splintering off from anyone, or that anyone is upset about anything.
Aside from revealing the pathological stupidity of Western news services, the attempt to make a distinction between good and bad al-Qaeda forces fighting Assad points to the futility of trying to choose sides in this horrible war, which has already seen more than 80,000 killed.
At this point, despite Assad's successful campaign to restore his control over Qusair, a strategically vital city adjacent to the Syrian-Lebanese border, most assessments indicate that the war is not nearly over. The sides may well stay bogged down fighting one another for years.
Then again, as Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said, it is also possible that it will all be over quickly.
In short then, no one knows how the war will play out in Syria. All Israeli political and military leaders know is that whatever happens, the situation in Syria is dangerous and highly flammable.
Moreover, everyone agrees that the conflict can spill out in two ways - ways which are not mutually exclusive.
First, both the government forces and their Shi'ite allies, and well as their al-Qaeda opponents, could attack Israel. Both sides have a clear interest in attacking Israel, since the one thing they all agree on is that they wish to see Israel destroyed. So as is the case for the Palestinians from all parties, for both Assad and his Shi'ite allies and his Sunni opponents, attacking Israel is a surefire way to build public support.
This danger has already materialized. Assad's forces shot at an IDF jeep patrolling the border this week and rushed to get the story - and their exaggerated version of its outcome - to the media. Rebel forces have taken pot shots at Israel, and targeted UN forces along the border, accusing them of siding with Israel.
As Eshel made clear, the second danger is that the weapons in Syria will proliferate far and wide. U.S. officials have already admitted that they have lost track of much of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal.
This week, PJ Media reported that a State Department whistle blower is about to come forward to divulge new information about the September 11, 2012, al-Qaeda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel were murdered in the attack. The whistle blower will reportedly reveal that Stevens was sent to Benghazi in a secret State Department effort to buy back anti-aircraft Stinger missiles that al-Qaeda received from the State Department during the 2011 US-led NATO campaign to overthrow the regime of longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.
Since Gaddafi was defeated, his massive arsenal of terror weapons has spread out across the region, and particularly to Syria and Gaza. If Syrian weapons are similarly dispersed, the Libyan disaster will look like the military equivalent of a skinned knee.
The party most responsible for the barbarous, protracted Syrian civil war that will almost certainly drag Israel into a regional war with is of course the Syrians themselves. But the party second most responsible for this mess is the Obama administration.
Since the outset, the U.S. had only one good option for intervention. It could have operated jointly with Israel to destroy Syria's missile arsenals and confiscate its weapons of mass destruction.
That is the only sure bet move the U.S. had.
Every other action came with high risks.
Rather than take its sure bet move, at every turn, the Obama administration has opted for the most dangerous action with the smallest possible payoff.
For instance, rather than actively build an opposition army based on Syrian Army defectors, Kurds and other relatively moderate forces, Obama subcontracted the formation of the Syrian opposition to Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. As Israel and others warned, Erdogan used his power as the U.S. contractor to build an opposition dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose ideology is largely indistinguishable from al-Qaeda. It was the Brotherhood's domination of the Syrian opposition forces that paved the way for al-Qaeda to enter and dominate opposition forces.
After Obama ensured that pro-Western forces would have no chance of taking over a post- Assad Syria, he allowed Russia to make matters worse. Rather than threaten Russian President Vladimir Putin in a credible way to prevent him from supplying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, Obama sat back and did nothing to block the imminent transfer of the game-changing system to Syria.
And as Eshel warned, Syria's advanced anti-aircraft batteries, which will threaten Israel's air superiority, will increase in a profound way the probability that Assad will attack Israel.
In the face of American rank incompetence, Assad has already broken all the red lines he and his father followed for more than 40 years.
He has already used chemical weapons. He has proliferated advanced weaponry to Hezbollah.
And he has already attacked Israel on the Golan Heights. Now that he has already crossed all of these red lines, the only question is how much he will escalate. Equipped with the S-300, the probability that he will escalate drastically has risen precipitously.
For all the danger emanating from Syria, Israel has one ace in the hole. We have a consensus that we must win the coming war with Syria decisively, whatever the cost. And for that consensus, we have just one man to thank: the late Hafez Assad.
During the 1990s, the Israeli Left and the Clinton administration managed to convince the Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak governments to offer to surrender the Golan Heights to Syria.
The only reason that the initiative failed was because Assad Sr. rejected Israel's repeated offers to surrender the strategic plateau in exchange for a piece of paper with a smiley face on it.
Had Assad accepted Israel's offers, we would have been facing a situation today that we would be hard pressed to contend with. On the one hand, we would be facing an all but certain war with Syria with al-Qaeda or Iran controlling everything from the Jordan Valley to Haifa Bay.
On the other hand we would be facing this threat as a fractured society.
To hide their culpability for rendering Israel all but powerless to defend itself, those who supported surrendering the Golan would be pretending the dangers away. Instead of being free to discuss how to win a war in Syria, we would be bogged down in discussions of whether we have a right to fight in Syria.
In other words, if it hadn't been for Assad Sr. and his unyielding hatred for Israel, we would be facing the same situation in relation to Syria today that we faced in Lebanon in 2006 and as we have faced in Gaza since we withdrew in 2005. The lack of consensus regarding our strategic imperative to defeat our enemies in Gaza and Lebanon caused the IDF to fail to win its campaigns in both theaters.
So at this bitter juncture, as we face the all but certain prospect of war with Syria while our one ally is behaving like a drunken bull in a China shop, we have one man to thank for our continued ability to face this daunting challenge.
Thank you, Hafez Assad. Your hatred has saved us.
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.
Be the first to read Caroline Glick's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Poll: Only 4% of U.S. Adults are Newly Insured, Half Choose Obamacare Alternative | Sarah Jean Seman
Gosnell Movie Exposing Late-Term Abortionist Becomes Most Successful Indiegogo Film Ever | Cortney O'Brien
National Poll: Half of Respondents Say They're "Less Likely" to Vote for Another Bush | Daniel Doherty