President Barack Obama’s plan to bring about a peaceful solution to the Syrian Civil War essentially hinders his ability to protect Israel from Iran and its terrorist proxies, Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial page editor of The Washington Post, argued in an op-ed Monday.

Both of his goals are valid, Diehl writes, but the problem is that these “two … goals are, as the president conceives them, directly in conflict with each other.”

At his post-deal news conference last month, Obama conceded that Iran might use some of the billions it will soon receive to supply the Lebanese Hezbollah militia with fresh weapons, and he vowed to do his best to stop it. “It is in the national security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from sending weapons to Hezbollah,” he said.

At the same time, Obama described the solution to the Syrian war as requiring an “agreement among the major powers that are interested in Syria.” He added, “Iran is one of those players, and I think that it’s important for them to be part of that conversation.”

Diehl discussed Iran’s support with Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, and Frederic Hof, who served in the State Department during Obama’s first term. They emphasized that Iran’s support of Syria ensures its link to Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel. At the same time, Iran’s support of Hezbollah allows the allied regime of Bashar al-Assad to stay in power.

Toward the end of his article, Diehl laid out how these Obama’s goals are incompatible.

The bottom line is that a serious effort to end Syria’s war will require Obama to choose between challenging Iran’s Syrian land bridge to Hezbollah through more vigorous support for anti-Assad forces, or accepting a settlement that tacitly sanctions a continued Iranian proxy army on Israel’s border. Considering his investment in the nuclear deal, it wouldn’t be surprising if he shrinks from both options — and hands a Syrian nightmare to his successor.

[Photo: Syriaa Wooon / YouTube ]