David Bedein asks. It appears, we can hope, that the days that countries like Syria can double-deal, host terrorists in their territory and run proxy-wars against Israel and the USA in Iraq, then run back to the UN or their great-power ally for protection when they suffer the inevitable may be waning.

Yesterday, Israel struck at what they say (and I believe them) is a terrorist base not far outside Damascus. Predictably, the Syrians (who are on the Security Council!) did go running back to the UN for help. In a positive development, the US has refused to condemn the attack, instead turning the criticism back at Syria:

This is the perfect time for both Israel and the US to turn the pressure on Syria, as both country's interests coincide - as they always have, but this moment, with terror attacks inside Israel and fighters still coming across the border into Iraq, is a singular moment for action.

Bedein says this represents a return to the Dayan doctrine:

He goes on to suggest that Saudi Arabia may be next. Saudi Arabia has continued to support terror groups and moved American-made F-15's to a base in northwestern Arabia in contravention of the agreement they made when the jets were purchased. Further, Saudi Arabi is said to be supporting the Sunni insurgency inside Iraq:

Could we be seeing a shift in doctrine? With regard to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran, America and Israel have such close interests that they're virtually indistiguishable. Israel may be able to perform actions that the US doesn't have the diplomatic credit or will to perform.

Back to the MSNBC article on the US reaction:

No green light necessary. It's "do what you have to do" time. My only fear is that there really is no planned doctrine shift behind this, and that what we have are simply more half measures.

In any case, expect more carping from the usual suspects about the lack of respect for and continuing undermining of the United Nations, whining about Israeli agression and America not controlling her ally.