NY Times Hints: Attack on Syria could Lead to a Regional War

[Battle of Kursk]

So the stakes are very high. Iran is going to throw everything it has at the West/Israel. The NY Times article is pointing toward that. In my opinion Iran is courting a disaster. But I also think Pakistani generals will not like another Karzai in Tehran.

On the contrary, If nothing else Iran is consistent to not get directly involved, but use proxy forces. Be it Hamas and IJ in Gaza, Heaballah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, others in Iraq. They almost never sent RG to fight, they never use the Iranian military directly.
This is a smart move since the lack of direct intervention stays the hand of the USA from attacking Iran.
USA needs a strong incentive to launch such attack, it would not be a walk in the park. So as long as Iran stays in the sidelines enough it seems there is not enough willingness in Iran to strike.
If Iran chooses to throw offensive power behind Assad they are sealing the order to bomb their country themselves. They are not stupid to do this.

 

[Battle of Kursk]

I think you and all other need to study some events which lead to the follies of WW 2; how nations joined-in as if driven by madness. One by one, marching to their destruction even if they were not really involved in the core conflicts.

I believe your reference should be to WWI actually?