The threat of rocket fire all over Israel, including Tel-Aviv, is looming large over our heads. There are two very possible scenarios that would bring about such a hellish result. Both scenarios involve best buddies Iran and Syria, as well as their allies Hamas and Hizbullah. If Israel (or anyone else) attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack the entire state with rockets. If NATO intervenes militarily in Syria, then Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack Israel.
Action in either Iran or Syria is stupid. In Iran, an attack on the nuclear facilities may eventually be the last option, but we aren't there yet. Impose tougher sanctions and see if they work. As for Syria, let them deal with their own internal chaos on their own. I'm not willing to risk Israeli lives to save the Syrians who are rising up against Assad.
However, since either situation would lead to all-out war and missiles all over Israel, if one scenario comes to fruition, then the other one should be executed as well. A NATO attack on Syria would make an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities a wise move, provided that Syria does indeed retaliate with rockets. And vice versa - if Iran's atomic plants are attacked, followed by an attack on Israel, NATO should help take out Assad's regime, like it did with Qaddafi.
A Great Day for *The Atlantic*
2 weeks ago
It seems I lost a comment here yesterday. ‘Normal’ commenting here has been impossible for a while (but I suspect the problem lies at my end). Try again:
ReplyDelete”If NATO intervenes militarily in Syria, then Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas will attack Israel.”
Why, pray, tell? Your cast iron assertion seems based on a doctrine that ME actors other than Israel are stir fry crazy. Assad has little to gain from attacking Israel in the case of Nato intervention, unless he’s crazy enough to want to unleash WW III. He’s a dictator but also quite a cool customer. And in any case, the big cheese of Nato, that guy Something Rasmussen, has stated categorically that a Nato intervention in Syria is not on the table.
”A NATO attack on Syria would make an Israeli strike on Iran's nukes a wise move, provided that Syria does indeed retaliate with rockets. And vice versa - if Iran's nukes are attacked, followed by an attack on Israel, NATO should help take out Assad's regime, like it did with Qaddafi.”
Even the most conservative report on Iran’s ‘nukes’ states quite clearly that they [Iran] don’t have any. The only nukepower in the ME remains, until further notice, lovely Israel. Iran may want them, may be working towards them, may have designs in a prominent drawer somewhere but as yet they have nothing deployable. The gain/cost balance of ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ is highly deficient in gain, considering what a Pandora’s Box such an action would open.
This post is very ‘yeah but no but’…
Why, pray, tell? Your cast iron assertion seems based on a doctrine that ME actors other than Israel are stir fry crazy. Assad has little to gain from attacking Israel in the case of Nato intervention, unless he’s crazy enough to want to unleash WW III.
ReplyDeleteIt's based on what Assad himself said. It could just be an empty threat, but it could be serious.
Even the most conservative report on Iran’s ‘nukes’ states quite clearly that they [Iran] don’t have any.
Yes, I meant Iranian nuclear facilities. I know they don't have nukes yet.
This post is very ‘yeah but no but’…
No, it isn't. My message is clear: Attacking either Syria or Iran is clearly a bad idea. All hell is quite likely to break loose in either scenario. Only if someone is dumb enough to attack one of the two and a regional war erupts, then should the other be attacked as well, since there would be nothing left to lose.
From The Forward (forgive me if I don’t praise them for objectivity in matters Zionist!):
ReplyDelete“If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than 6 hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv,” Assad said.
A crazy measure: what are we to understand by this? As well you know bloodcurdling rhetoric has been coming from Arab leaders that haven’t been brought into the fold for decades. Mainly for Arab consumption, of course. What they don't seem to have learned is that that same rhetoric is immediately converted into agitprop against them, faster than I can say 'Hasbara!'...
To believe that Assad, despite the rhetorical threats, would be crazy enough to rearrange the ME into a fireball in retaliation for Nato action, requires believing he’s a lot crazier than Ghadaffi. I don’t think that’s the case.
Using the term ‘nukes’ to describe nuclear facilities is a bit histrionic (but I could call it something else too!)
Even if there's a very slim chance of Assad attacking Israel in response to NATO intervention, I'm not willing to take the risk. Besides, I'm not convinced the chances are slim. Assad doesn't have to be crazier than Ghaddafi to attack - the circumstances are different. Ghaddafi was left with no allies. Assad still has his anti-Sunni allies Iran and Hizbullah who not only support him, but also need him. And who would have Libya started a regional war against - fellow Arab states? Best bud Silvio Berlusconi's Italy? Israel is too far away.
ReplyDeleteAs for nukes/nuclear facilities - just a typo. No deeper meaning or hidden agenda. I'll fix it.