Would the knowledgeable author of the article clarify what necessitated asking the question ‘Can Obama Afford Not to Bomb Syria? And how bombing SYRIA or not Iran becomes Emboldened? When the strike is concerning Particularly on SYRIA. Is not the subject sentence smell fishy? Can we not suppose then that Syria is not the primary target but a secondary target while Iran is the main target as per Israel's long demand to afford it to strike IRAN. When US has not mentioned publicly to strike Iran would it not be a violation of International law that only Israel does never cared for International law over the last 67 years. Was there any secret arrangement to strike Iran?
Can we have the audacity to ask a counter question as to what grave cause popped up that warranted whether US would afford to or not to bomb Syria. If a serious issue of any subject, concern can be solved politically and dialogs then why go for military option. Therefore, under the circumstances the President definitely can afford not to bomb Syria. If of course, Syria abides by all conditions of UN resolution to be available later this month. If even President has to negate the any, promise of striking IRAN THIS TIME. However, this question would at least help Iran to remain on the alert always for Israel's strike, which is Inevitable as Israel's PM has vowed to carry out strike on Iran all by itself.