British Prime Minister David Cameron recently met with the leaders of the Syrian opposition to President Bashar-al-Assad, and he is unimpressed, at least compared to the once leaders of the Libyan opposition who opposed and overthrew the now deceased Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Unlike the comparatively united front of the Libyan rebels, Syrian opposition is divided, disorganized, and apparently not quite as motivated, according to Cameron’s office.

Last week in Paris, at the Anglo-French summit between Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron urged the Syrian rebels to unite. Sarkozy chipped in, “We cannot bring about a Syrian revolution if the Syrian revolution does not make an effort to rally together and organize so that we can better help them. The principle obstacle is not just the blockage at the UN. In Libya we couldn't have had the revolution without the Libyans, and we won't be able to have a Syrian revolution without the Syrian opposition making enough effort to unite that we can support them more. We will not accept that a dictator massacres his people, but the revolution will not be led from outside. Like in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, it must be led from the inside.”

Cameron admitted that he was further unsatisfied by the international community’s support of the Syrian opposition, saying that not enough was being done to support the fight against al-Assad’s tyranny.  “What is happening in Syria is appalling. I'm not satisfied that we are taking all the action we can.”

At the Anglo-French summit, the two premiers agreed on arrangements for a food program for the Syrian rebels, but said that the poor quality of opposition leadership is negating their attempts to provide support.

Britain and France further pledged that “[they] will continue to increase their engagement with the Syrian opposition, including encouraging the opposition to work together and to support the vision of an inclusive, prosperous and free Syria.”

Plans are underway to unite the Syrian rebels in Tunis, Tunisia in a meeting held by Friends of Syria along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

In the meantime, Cameron has agreed for Britain to send medical supplies and food rations for 20,000 people to areas affected by the bloodshed.

One must wonder, however – altruism aside – why do we want to help Syria? Frankly Cameron and Sarkozy seem innocent enough, but how about Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and prominent American Republicans like Newt Gingrich?

Israel has done little to conceal its desire to have a conflict with Iran and Republicans have argued invasion tactics in the primary debates. Self-evidently both groups – very bizarrely, given that the Iraq conflict has finally started to slow down – would love to see a royal rumble in the Middle East, but how does Syria connect to Iran?

Besides the obvious that both Iran and Syria have historically been the benefactors of the Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah – who is very openly anti-Israel and therefore a threat to American foreign policy – as Neo-Conservative Republican Elliot Abrams pointed out, a ‘free’ Syria provides the West with a ‘proxy opportunity’ to heat up a ‘cold war’ with Iran.

War or Sanctions?

A Cold War with Iran sounds crazy, but is it? Britain’s Foreign Minister William Hague does not think so if Iran succeeds in acquiring nuclear capabilities.

According to Hague, we could be facing the most serious development in nuclear proliferation since the invention of the atomic bomb, which he says would be ‘a disaster in world affairs.’

U.S. and Israeli officials have commented that Iran is ignoring the economic sanctions imposed on them, thus making an attack more likely in 2012.

Hague says that the UK does not support military action again Iran at the present, but that all options remain possible. “The Iranians are clearly continuing their nuclear weapons program.  If they obtain nuclear weapons capability, then I think other nations across the Middle East will want to develop nuclear weapons. And so, the most serious round of nuclear proliferation since nuclear weapons were invented would have begun with all the destabilizing effects in the Middle East. And the threat of a new cold war in the Middle East without necessarily all the safety mechanisms. That would be a disaster in world affairs.”

Hague says that it would be wise to give economic sanctions on Iran time to work, a sentiment that is reflected in America, particularly in the Obama Administration. Obama has made public his desire to give economic sanctions, which include a financial blockade and an oil embargo, enough time to wreak havoc on Iran’s already decimated economy before considering military action.

However, President Obama’s team is increasingly less convinced that sanctions are the way forward with Iran and that the U.S. will be left with no option but to launch an attack or stand by and watch Israel do so by themselves.

One U.S. official said, “We don't see a way forward. [Iran’s] record shows that there is nothing to work with.”

Prevailing opinion in the Pentagon and State Department is that sanctions will fail, but that they provide an opportunity to delay otherwise hasty military action by Israel and to have some kind of tangible evidence to convince Britain, France, and the rest of Europe that everything was done to avoid conflict.

“The White House wants to see sanctions work,” said an anonymous U.S. official. “This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict. Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything. Sanctions are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail, then it's hard to see how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option.”

Therefore – in the words of Hague – for the Obama Administration, all options, including force, are on the table for Iran, but for the moment diplomacy and sanctions will take center stage.

However, in light of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim last week that Iran had loaded its first Iranian made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor and his threat to cut oil supplies to six European countries, the possibility of war has become all the more palpable.

Should war become a reality, the question will be whether Obama would find it wise to attack Iran before the upcoming presidential elections in November and –  if they were to delay – will the Israelis wait?

Yet despite Ahmadinejad’s apparent hawkish stance, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is said to have received a positive letter from Iran, one that the U.S. and the EU were said to have been ‘waiting for.’

In spite of Clinton’s encouraging news, Iran is said to be willing to make no new concessions on its nuclear program, and it seems extremely likely that the recent unsuccessful attack – in which it is almost certain Iran had a helping hand – at the Israeli embassies in Thailand, India, and Georgia indicate that Ahmadinejad is far from ready to back down to the U.S. and its allies.

Whether or not Israel will wait for America in the short term seems to depend on Iran’s uranium enrichment at the underground facilities at Fordow. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has said that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons at the Fordow facility, which is deep underground and immune to Israel airstrikes. Barak says that should this happen, Israel must consider an attack.

Between Syria and Iran, the Middle East is heating up, which is unlikely to be a positive thing, especially since a global double-dip recession and war rarely go well together.