Beyond rhetoric, the White House did nothing.

The White House condemned Russia’s intransigence, declaring that any further bloodshed will be on the Russians’ hands. Perhaps. But look at the bloodshed the US provoked in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

The aid is theoretically non-military, but everyone understands that it allows the Egyptian government to transfer a similar amount to the army. Indeed, the Egyptian delegation is formed mostly of army officials.

On one hand, the US cannot refuse Egypt the aid it needs without greatly alienating the country. On the other hand, the aid would now clearly be used to bolster the armed forces of a radical Muslim state. Even the Iranian parliament now has more secular members than its Egyptian counterpart.

Thus his reported threat to annihilate Tel Aviv if the UNSC condemns his regime to Gadhafi’s fate must be taken seriously. Israel cannot intercept the 1,600 medium-range missiles that Syria has at its disposal. We could destroy some of them, but hundreds will remain for a massive strike. Recall that Syrian SCUDs have chemical and biological warheads.

At this point, Assad does not fear whatever retaliation Israel would inflict on Damascus, because the UNSC resolution means that he is likely on his way out, anyway.

We gain nothing by replacing the hostile but sensible Assad with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

But that has been the historical norm. Our pilots have always been trained to fight superior enemy forces. The problem is that for 38 years they have had no real combat experience. Training is all very fine, but our pilots lack those daily encounters we used to have with Egyptians. IAF has become accustomed to slam-dunk raids against Palestinian and Lebanese targets.

The Americans’ intentions are transparent. We have seen this before in Israeli relations with Hamas, and previously with Hezbollah. The idea was to nurture a small ultra-radical offshoot, which would counter a major terrorist organization (Fatah and Amal, respectively) without a chance of growing big precisely because it is too radical to attract mainstream supporters. That reasoning has proved wrong repeatedly, and has resulted in the creation of Al Qaeda.

Now the White House is gambling that the Salafists will curtail the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose 49% win came as a surprise to no one but Washington officials. Salafists will agree to cooperate with the Americans precisely because they advocate the most radical form of Islam, which sanctions any deceit in pursuit of its goals.

In any conflict with the MB, the Salafists would win. Though the MB theoretically enjoys broader support, much of this support comes from urbanized liberals who care about their mortgages more than political ends. The Salafists can bring a much more militant crowd into the streets.

Jordan’s Abdullah thus hopes to secure himself against yet another Arab Spring revolution, which in his country would be spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Abdullah is especially concerned about Assad’s survival, expecting the Syrian ruler to retaliate for his treacherous support of the rebels by aiding the MB in Jordan.

But Mashaal’s promise is worth nothing. Hamas won’t sit on the sidelines while the Brotherhood overthrows the Jordanian monarchy, and neither would he ignore Palestinian demographic dominance in Jordan.

So far, the agreement holds.

The Iranian move is highly sensible: it makes it impossible for the EU to openly adapt by switching to other suppliers. If the Europeans decide to abandon Iranian oil in the future, they will lose it immediately.

With this possibility in mind, the EU is unlikely to institute an embargo on Iranian oil.