Will Israel Strike Iran ?

nittie

Star
Registered
Re: What does Israel gain from attacking Iran?

If they do go to war it will be for religious [couldn't think of a better word] reasons not something any rational person could understand. The ruling classes [i.e vampires] are in the buildup to armeggedon and the little people are going to pay for it. We have to understand what europeans meant by

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


or most of us are dead meat.
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Michael Savage Pissed – Obama Tells Israel Return to 1967 Borders Note to Israel: Ob

Michael Savage Pissed – Obama Tells Israel Return to 1967 Borders

Note to Israel: Obama doesn't speak for America!!! He speaks for himself and his Muslim brotherhood.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/4ad_1305924606"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/4ad_1305924606" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
 

K Luv

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Michael Savage Pissed – Obama Tells Israel Return to 1967 Borders Note to Israel

savage is a jew and preaches hate anyway so what else is he gonna say, I actually agree with obama on this one
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Will Israel Strike Iran's Nuke Sites? (11.4.11)

Will Israel Strike Iran's Nuke Sites? (11.4.11)

world war 3 is on it's way.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/72b_1320436346"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/72b_1320436346" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
 

robfmnola

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Will Israel Strike Iran's Nuke Sites? (11.4.11)

I'm to the point to where fuck it. Let it pop off over there. Iran, Iraq, afghanistan, the whole middle east. Get our people out of there and let them go for broke.
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
From Syria to Iran- Israel's Drive for Nuclear World War is On!

From Syria to Iran- Israel's Drive for Nuclear World War is On!

«leaked information». The threat of Nuclear War from Israel is the last
card on the table ... Is Israel insane and stupid enough to play this
card? They say they are!

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/192_1320609484"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/192_1320609484" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

wtf? obama's a monster:angry:
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran

War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran
Iran says it won't resort to terrorism to avenge the latest murder of one of its nuclear scientists. The speaker of the Iranian Parliament accused Israel and the U.S. of using such tactics, in a desperate bid to stop Tehran's nuclear program. A number of Western officials have spoken out recently about possible military action against Iran. And, as RT's Paula Slier reports, many in Israel say a covert war may already be underway.
Iran isn't a threat to anyone and the tension around its nuclear programme is fabricated by Washington - so says Brian Becker of the anti-war ANSWER coalition
<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/32e_1326802151"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/32e_1326802151" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
War With Iran = Suicide

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g67grWuDmyg?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g67grWuDmyg?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
Wars are always started with lies and they are lying to you again and you have got to call all of your friends and relatives and say look, what they are telling you about Iran is the exact same thing they said about Iraq. And if you don't stand up, you're going to see a lot of your friends and neighbors kids die for the benefit of a foreign government. If we do not choose to fight against these oppressors now we will soon have no choice but to fight for them from now on.

When the project for the new American century was putting out its policy documents about the new American militant super power, they were literally talking about a century of warfare. They were talking about starting a war that would not be over in our own life times. This thing has gotten completely out of hand and its going to end badly because the United States is going to be destroyed. They can't win a conventional world war and it is insanity. It is suidical for them to be continuing on this course. The only reason they are doing so is Israel pays them a lot of money and blackmails the rest.

If you were on an ocean liner and you saw the captain driving it towards an iceburg would you not grab the wheel and give it a spint to try and save the ship and everybody on it? Well we're on the ship of state right now. Barak Obama is going to get up in the congress and hes going to plot the couse the ship is on, and its headed into disaster. And if the captain isn't smart enough or responsible enough to avert that disaster, to turn the wheel and avoid tragety... then somebody has to take the wheel from him or we're all going to die.

If the US invades Iran and Russia and China come in on the other side this is going to escelate until this goes nuclear and then we're talking an extinction level event and i know it sounds kind of fantastic... well over the last 18 years I've made a lot of prognostications, and i've made a few mistakes but over all I've got a good batting average for knowing what the money junkies are thinking and just how far they're willing to go and I'm telling you right now that the people who are calling the shots here would gladly see 200 million Americans die as long as it garunteed the surviving 100 million would be their ovedient slaves for all time to come. Thats exactly where we are.

Michael Rivero of http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Watch Entire 2012-01-24 Broadcast here: http://www.justin.tv/michaelrivero/b/306474028
Youtube Link: http://youtu.be/g67grWuDmyg
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran

1oKaO.SlMa.91.jpg
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Michael Savage Rabidly Says Forget Habeas Corpus, Foams at the Mouth for War with Ira

Michael Savage Rabidly Says Forget Habeas Corpus, Foams at the Mouth for War with Iran

Michael Savage Rabidly Says Forget Habeas Corpus, Foams at the Mouth for War with Iran[/font]
I AM SO SICK OF THESE SLIMY CHICKEN HAWKS

BTW Michael Savage isn't his real name, its Michael Weiner

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/74f_1330099923"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/74f_1330099923" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran

The unmistakeable Drumbeat to War has been thumping away lately with the reckless agitation for a preemptive military strike on Iran setting the tempo. I doubt most people have forgotten: war talk can lead to war - - i.e., Iraq.

The Three Stooges (Gingrich, Romney & Santorum) seem to be leading the way trying to out-do each other on how, when & where best to attack Iran -- apparently thinking the talk will benefit their chances of winning the Republican nomination - - and apparently not thinking or caring how such an event could lead to ruin in this country.

I'm convinced many in the GOP have taken positions in the past on the economy that could lead to ruin - - in their quest to ruin the President - - and many seem to be up to it again with this Iran war-talk.

I guess its just no escape: Its take down Obama or Bust, to hell with the cost.


Have to admit, as much as I dislike that weasly fuck <s>Lamar</s> Oopps, LOL, I meant his candidate, Ron Paul, he deserves credit for being a notable exception, on this one.
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Re: War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran

This looks bad and there's a chance it will happen before the elections so there's no political advantage in stopping it.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/answers-to-all-your-questions-about-iran-israel-bibi-and-obama/261906/" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/answers-to-all-your-questions-about-iran-israel-bibi-and-obama/261906/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: War In the Air: Israel on edge over Iran


The Israeli Crisis



geopolitical-weekly.png




Stratfor
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Report
By George Friedman
August 14, 2012





Crises are normally short, sharp and intense affairs. Israel's predicament has developed on a different time frame, is more diffuse than most crises and has not reached a decisive and intense moment. But it is still a crisis. It is not a crisis solely about Iran, although the Israeli government focuses on that issue. Rather, it is over Israel's strategic reality since 1978, when it signed the Camp David accords with Egypt.

Perhaps the deepest aspect of the crisis is that Israel has no internal consensus on whether it is in fact a crisis, or if so, what the crisis is about. The Israeli government speaks of an existential threat from Iranian nuclear weapons. I would argue that the existential threat is broader and deeper, part of it very new, and part of it embedded in the founding of Israel.

Israel now finds itself in a long-term crisis in which it is struggling to develop a strategy and foreign policy to deal with a new reality. This is causing substantial internal stress, since the domestic consensus on Israeli policy is fragmenting at the same time that the strategic reality is shifting. Though this happens periodically to nations, Israel sees itself in a weak position in the long run due to its size and population, despite its current military superiority. More precisely, it sees the evolution of events over time potentially undermining that military reality, and it therefore feels pressured to act to preserve it. How to preserve its superiority in the context of the emerging strategic reality is the core of the Israeli crisis.


Egypt

Since 1978, Israel's strategic reality had been that it faced no threat of a full peripheral war. After Camp David, the buffer of the Sinai Peninsula separated Egypt and Israel, and Egypt had a government that did not want that arrangement to break. Israel still faced a formally hostile Syria. Syria had invaded Lebanon in 1976 to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization based there and reconsolidate its hold over Lebanon, but knew it could not attack Israel by itself. Syria remained content reaching informal understandings with Israel. Meanwhile, relatively weak and isolated Jordan depended on Israel for its national security. Lebanon alone was unstable. Israel periodically intervened there, not very successfully, but not at very high cost.

The most important of Israel's neighbors, Egypt, is now moving on an uncertain course. This weekend, new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi removed five key leaders of the military and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and revoked constitutional amendments introduced by the military. There are two theories on what has happened. In the first, Morsi -- who until his election was a senior leader of the country's mainstream Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood -- is actually much more powerful than the military and is acting decisively to transform the Egyptian political system. In the second, this is all part of an agreement between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood that gives Morsi the appearance of greater power while actually leaving power with the military.

On the whole, I tend to think that the second is the case. Still, it is not clear how this will evolve: The appearance of power can turn into the reality of power. Despite any sub rosa agreements between the military and Morsi, how these might play out in a year or two as the public increasingly perceives Morsi as being in charge -- limiting the military's options and cementing Morsi's power -- is unknown. In the same sense, Morsi has been supportive of security measures taken by the military against militant Islamists, as was seen in the past week's operations in the Sinai Peninsula.

The Sinai remains a buffer zone against major military forces but not against the paramilitaries linked to radical Islamists who have increased their activities in the peninsula since the fall of former President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011. Last week, they attacked an Egyptian military post on the Gaza border, killing 16 Egyptian soldiers. This followed several attacks against Israeli border crossings. Morsi condemned the attack and ordered a large-scale military crackdown in the Sinai. Two problems could arise from this.

First, the Egyptians' ability to defeat the militant Islamists depends on redefining the Camp David accords, at least informally, to allow Egypt to deploy substantial forces there (though even this might not suffice). These additional military forces might not threaten Israel immediately, but setting a precedent for a greater Egyptian military presence in the Sinai Peninsula could eventually lead to a threat.

This would be particularly true if Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood impose their will on the Egyptian military. If we take Morsi at face value as a moderate, the question becomes who will succeed him. The Muslim Brotherhood is clearly ascendant, and the possibility that a secular democracy would emerge from the Egyptian uprising is unlikely. It is also clear that the Muslim Brotherhood is a movement with many competing factions. And it is clear from the elections that the Muslim Brotherhood represents the most popular movement in Egypt and that no one can predict how it will evolve or which factions will dominate and what new tendencies will arise. Egypt in the coming years will not resemble Egypt of the past generation, and that means that the Israeli calculus for what will happen on its southern front will need to take Hamas in Gaza into account and perhaps an Islamist Egypt prepared to ally with Hamas.


Syria and Lebanon

A similar situation exists in Syria. The secular and militarist regime of the al Assad family is in serious trouble. As mentioned, the Israelis had a working relationship with the Syrians going back to the Syrian invasion of Lebanon against the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1976. It was not a warm relationship, but it was predictable, particularly in the 1990s: Israel allowed Syria a free hand in Lebanon in exchange for Damascus' limiting Hezbollah's actions.

Lebanon was not exactly stable, but its instability hewed to a predictable framework. That understanding broke down when the United States seized an opportunity to force Syria to retreat from Lebanon in 2006 following the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri. The United States used the Cedar Revolution that rose up in defiance of Damascus to retaliate against Syria for allowing al Qaeda to send jihadists into Iraq from Syria.

This didn't spark the current unrest in Syria, which appears to involve a loose coalition of Sunnis, including elements of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. Though Israel far preferred Syrian President Bashar al Assad to them, al Assad himself was shifting his behavior. The more pressure he came under, the more he became dependent on Iran. Israel began facing the unpleasant prospect of a Sunni Islamist government emerging or a government heavily dependent on Iran. Neither outcome appealed to Israel, and neither outcome was in Israel's control.

Just as dangerous to Israel would be the Lebanonization of Syria. Syria and Lebanon are linked in many ways, though Lebanon's political order was completely different and Syria could serve as a stabilizing force for it. There is now a reasonable probability that Syria will become like Lebanon, namely, a highly fragmented country divided along religious and ethnic lines at war with itself. Israel's best outcome would be for the West to succeed in preserving Syria's secular military regime without al Assad. But it is unclear how long a Western-backed regime resting on the structure of al Assad's Syria would survive. Even the best outcome has its own danger. And while Lebanon itself has been reasonably stable in recent years, when Syria catches a cold, Lebanon gets pneumonia. Israel thus faces the prospect of declining security to its north.


The U.S. Role and Israel's Strategic Lockdown

It is important to take into account the American role in this, because ultimately Israel's national security -- particularly if its strategic environment deteriorates -- rests on the United States. For the United States, the current situation is a strategic triumph. Iran had been extending its power westward, through Iraq and into Syria. This represented a new force in the region that directly challenged American interests. Where Israel originally had an interest in seeing al Assad survive, the United States did not. Washington's primary interest lay in blocking Iran and keeping it from posing a threat to the Arabian Peninsula. The United States saw Syria, particularly after the uprising, as an Iranian puppet. While the United States was delighted to see Iran face a reversal in Syria, Israel was much more ambivalent about that outcome.

The Israelis are always opposed to the rising regional force. When that was Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, they focused on Nasser. When it was al Qaeda and its sympathizers, they focused on al Qaeda. When it was Iran, they focused on Tehran. But simple opposition to a regional tendency is no longer a sufficient basis for Israeli strategy. As in Syria, Israel must potentially oppose all tendencies, where the United States can back one. That leaves Israeli policy incoherent. Lacking the power to impose a reality on Syria, the best Israel can do is play the balance of power. When its choice is between a pro-Iranian power and a Sunni Islamist power, it can no longer play the balance of power. Since it lacks the power to impose a reality, it winds up in a strategic lockdown.

Israel's ability to influence events on its borders was never great, but events taking place in bordering countries are now completely beyond its control. While Israeli policy has historically focused on the main threat, using the balance of power to stabilize the situation and ultimately on the decisive use of military force, it is no longer possible to identify the main threat. There are threats in all of its neighbors, including Jordan (where the kingdom's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is growing in influence while the Hashemite monarchy is reviving relations with Hamas). This means using the balance of power within these countries to create secure frontiers is no longer an option. It is not clear there is a faction for Israel to support or a balance that can be achieved. Finally, the problem is political rather than military. The ability to impose a political solution is not available.

Against the backdrop, any serious negotiations with the Palestinians are impossible. First, the Palestinians are divided. Second, they are watching carefully what happens in Egypt and Syria since this might provide new political opportunities. Finally, depending on what happens in neighboring countries, any agreement Israel might reach with the Palestinians could turn into a nightmare.

The occupation therefore continues, with the Palestinians holding the initiative. Unrest begins when they want it to begin and takes the form they want it to have within the limits of their resources. The Israelis are in a responsive mode. They can't eradicate the Palestinian threat. Extensive combat in Gaza, for example, has both political consequences and military limits. Occupying Gaza is easy; pacifying Gaza is not.


Israel's Military and Domestic Political Challenges

The crisis the Israelis face is that their levers of power, the open and covert relationships they had, and their military force are not up to the task of effectively shaping their immediate environment. They have lost the strategic initiative, and the type of power they possess will not prove decisive in dealing with their strategic issues. They no longer are operating at the extremes of power, but in a complex sphere not amenable to military solutions.

Israel's strong suit is conventional military force. It can't fully understand or control the forces at work on its borders, but it can understand the Iranian nuclear threat. This leads it to focus on the sort of conventional conflict it excels at, or at least used to excel at. The 2006 war with Hezbollah was quite conventional, but Israel was not prepared for an infantry war. The Israelis instead chose to deal with Lebanon via an air campaign, but that failed to achieve their political ends.

The Israelis want to redefine the game to something they can win, which is why their attention is drawn to the Iranian nuclear program. Of all their options in the region, a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities apparently plays to their strengths. Two things make such a move attractive. The first is that eliminating Iran's nuclear capability is desirable for Israel. The nuclear threat is so devastating that no matter how realistic the threat is, removing it is desirable.

Second, it would allow Israel to demonstrate the relevance of its power in the region. It has been a while since Israel has had a significant, large-scale military victory. The 1980s invasion of Lebanon didn't end well; the 2006 war was a stalemate; and while Israel may have achieved its military goals in the 2008 invasion of Gaza, that conflict was a political setback. Israel is still taken seriously in the regional psychology, but the sense of inevitability Israel enjoyed after 1967 is tattered. A victory on the order of destroying Iranian weapons would reinforce Israel's relevance.

It is, of course, not clear that the Israelis intend to launch such an attack. And it is not clear that such an attack would succeed. It is also not clear that the Iranian counter at the Strait of Hormuz wouldn't leave Israel in a difficult political situation, and above all it is not clear that Egyptian and Syrian factions would even be impressed by the attacks enough to change their behavior.

Israel also has a domestic problem, a crisis of confidence. Many military and intelligence leaders oppose an attack on Iran. Part of their opposition is rooted in calculation. Part of it is rooted in a series of less-than-successful military operations that have shaken their confidence in the military option. They are afraid both of failure and of the irrelevance of the attack on the strategic issues confronting Israel.

Political inertia can be seen among Israeli policymakers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to form a coalition with the centrist Kadima Party, but that fell apart over the parochial Israeli issue of whether Orthodox Jews should be drafted. Rather than rising to the level of a strategic dialogue, the secularist constituency of Kadima confronted the religious constituencies of the Likud coalition and failed to create a government able to devise a platform for decisive action.

This is Israel's crisis. It is not a sudden, life-threatening problem but instead is the product of unraveling regional strategies, a lack of confidence earned through failure and a political system incapable of unity on any particular course. Israel, a small country that always has used military force as its ultimate weapon, now faces a situation where the only possible use of military force -- against Iran -- is not only risky, it is not clearly linked to any of the main issues Israel faces other than the nuclear issue.

The French Third Republic was marked by a similar sense of self-regard overlaying a deep anxiety. This led to political paralysis and Paris' inability to understand the precise nature of the threat and to shape its response to it. Rather than deal with the issues at hand in the 1930s, the French relied on past glories to guide them. That didn't turn out very well.




"<a href="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israeli-crisis">The Israeli Crisis</a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

War and Bluff: Iran, Israel and the United States




geopolitical-weekly.png




Stratfor
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
Geopolitical Weekly Report
By George Friedman
September 11, 2012


For the past several months, the Israelis have been threatening to attack Iranian nuclear sites as the United States has pursued a complex policy of avoiding complete opposition to such strikes while making clear it doesn't feel such strikes are necessary. At the same time, the United States has carried out maneuvers meant to demonstrate its ability to prevent the Iranian counter to an attack -- namely blocking the Strait of Hormuz. While these maneuvers were under way, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said no "redline" exists that once crossed by Iran would compel an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The Israeli government has long contended that Tehran eventually will reach the point where it will be too costly for outsiders to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

The Israeli and American positions are intimately connected, but the precise nature of the connection is less clear. Israel publicly casts itself as eager to strike Iran but restrained by the United States, though unable to guarantee it will respect American wishes if Israel sees an existential threat emanating from Iran. The United States publicly decries Iran as a threat to Israel and to other countries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, but expresses reservations about military action out of fears that Iran would respond to a strike by destabilizing the region and because it does not believe the Iranian nuclear program is as advanced as the Israelis say it is.

The Israelis and the Americans publicly hold the same view of Iran. But their public views on how to proceed diverge. The Israelis have less tolerance for risk than the Americans, who have less tolerance for the global consequences of an attack. Their disagreement on the issue pivots around the status of the Iranian nuclear program. All of this lies on the surface; let us now examine the deeper structure of the issue.


Behind the Rhetoric

From the Iranian point of view, a nuclear program has been extremely valuable. Having one has brought Iran prestige in the Islamic world and has given it a level of useful global political credibility. As with North Korea, having a nuclear program has allowed Iran to sit as an equal with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, creating a psychological atmosphere in which Iran's willingness merely to talk to the Americans, British, French, Russians, Chinese and Germans represented a concession. Though it has positioned the Iranians extremely well politically, the nuclear program also has triggered sanctions that have caused Iran substantial pain. But Iran has prepared for sanctions for years, building a range of corporate, banking and security mechanisms to evade their most devastating impact. Having countries like Russia and China unwilling to see Iran crushed has helped. Iran can survive sanctions.


While a nuclear program has given Iran political leverage, actually acquiring nuclear weapons would increase the risk of military action against Iran. A failed military action would benefit Iran, proving its power. By contrast, a successful attack that dramatically delayed or destroyed Iran's nuclear capability would be a serious reversal. The Stuxnet episode, assuming it was an Israeli or U.S. attempt to undermine Iran's program using cyberwarfare, is instructive in this regard. Although the United States hailed Stuxnet as a major success, it hardly stopped the Iranian program, if the Israelis are to be believed. In that sense, it was a failure.

Using nuclear weapons against Israel would be catastrophic to Iran. The principle of mutual assured destruction, which stabilized the U.S.-Soviet balance in the Cold War, would govern Iran's use of nuclear weapons. If Iran struck Israel, the damage would be massive, forcing the Iranians to assume that the Israelis and their allies (specifically, the United States) would launch a massive counterattack on Iran, annihilating large parts of Iran's population.

It is here that we get to the heart of the issue. While from a rational perspective the Iranians would be fools to launch such an attack, the Israeli position is that the Iranians are not rational actors and that their religious fanaticism makes any attempt to predict their actions pointless. Thus, the Iranians might well accept the annihilation of their country in order to destroy Israel in a sort of megasuicide bombing. The Israelis point to the Iranians' rhetoric as evidence of their fanaticism. Yet, as we know, political rhetoric is not always politically predictive. In addition, rhetoric aside, Iran has pursued a cautious foreign policy, pursuing its ends with covert rather than overt means. It has rarely taken reckless action, engaging instead in reckless rhetoric.

If the Israelis believe the Iranians are not deterred by the prospect of mutually assured destruction, then allowing them to develop nuclear weapons would be irrational. If they do see the Iranians as rational actors, then shaping the psychological environment in which Iran acquires nuclear weapons is a critical element of mutually assured destruction. Herein lies the root of the great Israeli debate that pits the Netanyahu government, which appears to regard Iran as irrational, against significant segments of the Israeli military and intelligence communities, which regard Iran as rational.


Avoiding Attaining a Weapon

Assuming the Iranians are rational actors, their optimal strategy lies not in acquiring nuclear weapons and certainly not in using them, but instead in having a credible weapons development program that permits them to be seen as significant international actors. Developing weapons without ever producing them gives Iran international political significance, albeit at the cost of sanctions of debatable impact. At the same time, it does not force anyone to act against them, thereby permitting outsiders to avoid incurring the uncertainties and risks of such action.

Up to this point, the Iranians have not even fielded a device for testing, let alone a deliverable weapon. For all their activity, either their technical limitations or a political decision has kept them from actually crossing the obvious redlines and left Israel trying to define some developmental redline.

Iran's approach has created a slowly unfolding crisis, reinforced by Israel's slowly rolling response. For its part, all of Israel's rhetoric -- and periodic threats of imminent attack -- has been going on for several years, but the Israelis have done little beyond some covert and cyberattacks to block the Iranian nuclear program. Just as the gap between Iranian rhetoric and action has been telling, so, too, has the gap between Israeli rhetoric and reality. Both want to appear more fearsome than either is actually willing to act.

The Iranian strategy has been to maintain ambiguity on the status of its program, while making it appear that the program is capable of sudden success -- without ever achieving that success. The Israeli strategy has been to appear constantly on the verge of attack without ever attacking and to use the United States as its reason for withholding attacks, along with the studied ambiguity of the Iranian program. The United States, for its part, has been content playing the role of holding Israel back from an attack that Israel doesn't seem to want to launch. The United States sees the crumbling of Iran's position in Syria as a major Iranian reversal and is content to see this play out alongside sanctions.

Underlying Israel's hesitancy about whether it will attack has been the question of whether it can pull off an attack. This is not a political question, but a military and technical one. Iran, after all, has been preparing for an attack on its nuclear facilities since their inception. Some scoff at Iranian preparations for attack. These are the same people who are most alarmed by supposed Iranian acumen in developing nuclear weapons. If a country can develop nuclear weapons, there is no reason it can't develop hardened and dispersed sites and create enough ambiguity to deprive Israeli and U.S. intelligence of confidence in their ability to determine what is where. I am reminded of the raid on Son Tay during the Vietnam War. The United States mounted an effort to rescue U.S. prisoners of war in North Vietnam only to discover that its intelligence on where the POWs were located was completely wrong. Any politician deciding whether to attack Iran would have Son Tay and a hundred other intelligence failures chasing around their brains, especially since a failed attack on Iran would be far worse than no attack.

Dispersed sites reduce Israel's ability to strike hard at a target and to acquire a battle damage assessment that would tell Israel three things: first, whether the target had been destroyed when it was buried under rock and concrete; second, whether the target contained what Israel thought it contained; and third, whether the strike had missed a backup site that replicated the one it destroyed. Assuming the Israelis figured out that another attack was needed, could their air force mount a second air campaign lasting days or weeks? They have a small air force and the distances involved are great.

Meanwhile, deploying special operations forces to so many targets so close to Tehran and so far from Iran's borders would be risky, to say the least. Some sort of exotic attack, for example one using nuclear weapons to generate electromagnetic pulses to paralyze the region, is conceivable -- but given the size of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem-Haifa triangle, it is hard to imagine Israel wanting to set such a precedent. If the Israelis have managed to develop a new weapons technology unknown to anyone, all conventional analyses are off. But if the Israelis had an ultrasecret miracle weapon, postponing its use might compromise its secrecy. I suspect that if they had such a weapon, they would have used it by now.

The battlefield challenges posed by the Iranians are daunting, and a strike becomes even less appealing considering that the Iranians have not yet detonated a device and are far from a weapon. The Americans emphasize these points, but they are happy to use the Israeli threats to build pressure on the Iranians. The United States wants to undermine Iranian credibility in the region by making Iran seem vulnerable. The twin forces of Israeli rhetoric and sanctions help make Iran look embattled. The reversal in Syria enhances this sense. Naval maneuvers in the Strait of Hormuz add to the sense that the United States is prepared to neutralize Iranian counters to an Israeli airstrike, making the threat Israel poses and the weakness of Iran appear larger.

When we step back and view the picture as a whole, we see Iran using its nuclear program for political reasons but being meticulous not to make itself appear unambiguously close to success. We see the Israelis talking as if they were threatened but acting as if they were in no rush to address the supposed threat. And we see the Americans acting as if they are restraining Israel, paradoxically appearing to be Iran's protector even though they are using the Israeli threat to increase Iranian insecurity. For their part, the Russians initially supported Iran in a bid to bog down the United States in another Middle East crisis. But given Iran's reversal in Syria, the Russians are clearly reconsidering their Middle East strategy and even whether they actually have a strategy in the first place. Meanwhile, the Chinese want to continue buying Iranian oil unnoticed.

It is the U.S.-Israeli byplay that is most fascinating. On the surface, Israel is driving U.S. policy. On closer examination, the reverse is true. Israel has bluffed an attack for years and never acted. Perhaps now it will act, but the risks of failure are substantial. If Israel really wants to act, this is not obvious. Speeches by politicians do not constitute clear guidelines. If the Israelis want to get the United States to participate in the attack, rhetoric won't work. Washington wants to proceed by increasing pressure to isolate Iran. Simply getting rid of a nuclear program not clearly intended to produce a device is not U.S. policy. Containing Iran without being drawn into a war is. To this end, Israeli rhetoric is useful.

Rather than seeing Netanyahu as trying to force the United States into an attack, it is more useful to see Netanyahu's rhetoric as valuable to U.S. strategy. Israel and the United States remain geopolitically aligned. Israel's bellicosity is not meant to signal an imminent attack, but to support the U.S. agenda of isolating and maintaining pressure on Iran. That would indicate more speeches from Netanyahu and greater fear of war. But speeches and emotions aside, intensifying psychological pressure on Iran is more likely than war.


Read more: War and Bluff: Iran, Israel and the United States | Stratfor



 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Israel Strikes Iran in Syria, Losing Jet, as Conflict Moves Into Perilous Phase

Image
merlin_133560506_0e808289-64d6-4b4d-9f84-18a755081a6d-articleLarge.jpg

Pieces of an Israeli F-16 that crashed in northern Israel on Saturday after coming under antiaircraft fire. The pilot ejected, according to a military spokesman. CreditJack Guez/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


By Isabel Kershner
Feb. 10, 2018


JERUSALEM — Israeli, Syrian and Iranian military forces clashed on Saturday in a series of audacious strikes that could mark a new and dangerous phase in both a long-simmering cross-border conflict and Syria’s long civil war.

The confrontations began before dawn when Israel intercepted what it said was an Iranian drone that had penetrated its airspace from Syria, and the Israeli military said it then attacked what it said was the command-and-control center from which Iran had launched the drone, at a Syrian air base near Palmyra.

One of Israel’s F-16 fighter jets crashed in northern Israel on its way back from the mission after coming under heavy Syrian antiaircraft fire, believed to be the first Israeli plane to be lost under enemy fire in decades.

That prompted a broad wave of Israeli strikes against a dozen Syrian and Iranian targets in Syrian territory. The Israeli military said it hit eight Syrian targets, including three aerial defense batteries, and four Iranian positions that it described as “part of Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria.”


The events, including Israel’s direct engagement with Iranian forces, risked escalating the intensifying crisis in Syria, where forces from Russia, Turkey and the United States are also on the ground in a war with multiple fronts and multiple factions, including the remnants of the Islamic State and other Islamist militant groups.

Israel has long warned about the risk of conflict as Iranian forces and their allies, including Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group militia, have dug in on Syrian territory and approached the boundary with the Israeli-held portion of the Golan Heights. Israel, which considers Iran its most potent enemy in the region, has been lobbying world powers — so far, apparently, without success — to distance these forces from the border areas.

Israel seized the strategic plateau from Syria in the 1967 war and fought off an invasion there in 1973. Though the area remained quiet for decades, it has become a growing flash point in Syria’s war.

Israel has carried out scores of strikes in Syria in recent years, largely targeting what it says are advanced weapons stores or convoys taking weapons to Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon. Israel has also reportedly hit Syrian government facilities involved in weapons development and an Iranian base under construction in Syria.

But this was the first Israeli strike on a site where Iranian forces were present, analysts said, and Israeli military officials said this was the first time an Iranian drone had penetrated Israeli airspace during the Syrian war.

The officials said they were investigating the purpose of the drone. There was no immediate indication that it was armed.

Israeli military officials accused the Syrians and Iranians of “playing with fire,” but indicated that Israel wanted to contain the situation.

“We are ready to exact a very heavy price from whoever acts against us,” said Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis, the chief spokesman of the Israeli military, “but we are not seeking an escalation.”

The jet crash represented a severe blow to Israel’s prestige and could mark a major change after years in which it acted against targets in Syria with relative impunity.

In the past, Syria has claimed, falsely, that it had shot down Israeli aircraft. The last time an Israeli jet was downed under enemy fire appears to have been in the early 1980s.

Hezbollah said on Saturday that the downing of the Israeli F-16 jet by the Syrian army marked the “start of a new strategic phase,” which would limit Israeli exploitation of Syrian airspace. “Today’s developments mean the old equations have categorically ended,” the Lebanese Shiite group said in a statement.

But just as Syrian self-confidence appears to have grown, Israel also sent a strong message with its broad wave of strikes on Saturday, Israeli analysts said. They noted that this was the first time in recent years that Israel struck Syrian territory in broad daylight. Despite more Syrian antiaircraft fire, all Israeli jets returned to base safely from the second mission, after the first jet was lost, according to the Israeli military.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel spent much of Saturday in consultations with his defense minister, the Israeli chief of staff and other military officials.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement calling on “all sides involved to show restraint and avoid all acts that could lead to complicating the situation further.” The ministry added: “It is absolutely unacceptable to create threats to the lives and security of Russian soldiers that are in the Syrian Arab Republic on the invitation of the legal government to assist in the fight against terrorism.”

After a meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow two weeks ago, Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement that Israel viewed with “utmost gravity” Iran’s efforts to establish a military presence in Syria, and said he had made clear to Mr. Putin that Israel would “act according to need.”

Russia, along with Iran, has been helping prop up the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

In the view of Israeli analysts, Syria, Iran and Russia would appear to have little interest now in getting into a full-blown conflict with Israel.

“Israel has the capability to destroy the Russian and Iranian project to save the Assad regime,” said Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence and now the director of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “This is not the weak Syrian opposition,” Mr. Yadlin said in an interview. “This is strong Israel.”

Because of what he called the “overwhelming Israeli reaction” to the downing of the jet, Mr. Yadlin said he thought there was “a high chance of containment.”

The Iranian Foreign Ministry denied the drone had strayed into Israeli airspace and rejected as “laughable” reports that Israel had intercepted a drone launched from Syria. “Iran’s presence in Syria is limited to advisers at the request of its legitimate government,” an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Bahram Qasemi, was quoted as saying by the official Islamic Republic News Agency.


Syrian Army officials said the drone had been carrying out a routine mission against the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, over Syrian airspace, according to the news site Al-Manar.

Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, another spokesman for the Israeli military, insisted that the drone was “on a specific Iranian mission,” and was shot down deep in Israeli territory.

Still, some Israeli analysts did not discount the possibility that the Iranian drone had crossed into Israel because of a malfunction.

“I fail to see the logic behind the Iranians sending a drone to Israel,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israeli television analyst of Arab affairs and an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “They have other priorities right now in Syria.”


But once it had crossed into Israeli airspace, the Israelis had no choice but to respond, Mr. Yaari said.

He added, “The almost constant friction between the Iranian presence in Syria and the Israeli Army is taking its toll.”

The semiofficial Iranian news agency ISNA quoted a deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Hossein Salam, as saying, “We can destroy all American bases in the region.” He added: “From this very location, we can create an inferno for the Zionists.”

The remarks were seen as a warning by Iran to the United States to rein in Israel.

It was not immediately clear if the Israeli F-16 was directly hit by the Syrian antiaircraft fire. Early assessments suggested that it was, Colonel Conricus said, though he added that nothing had been officially confirmed.


The Israeli military said two pilots had bailed from the downed aircraft “as per procedure.” One pilot was severely injured as a result of “an emergency evacuation,” it said.

The Israeli military said that a combat helicopter intercepted the Iranian drone before dawn on Saturday.

“The aircraft was identified by the Aerial Defense Systems at an early phase and was under surveillance until the interception,” the military said, adding that it “attacked the Iranian aircraft’s launch components in Syrian territory.”

The second wave of strikes included sites near the capital, Damascus, according to Syrian state media and Damascus residents.

The sounds of explosions could be heard near Kiswa and Jdeidet Artouz, suburbs to the south and to the west of Damascus, residents said.

There was also what sounded like the launch of rockets or missiles from Mezze air base, in Damascus. Syrian state television said the Syrian military’s antiaircraft guns were responding to Israeli airstrikes.

Later Saturday, air-raid sirens sounded in the Israeli-held Golan Heights and in the Galilee area of northern Israel, though there were no immediate reports of incoming fire.

The clash showed the extent to which Syria has become a battlefield between Israel and Iran, among many other intersecting conflicts involving foreign combatants.


Reporting was contributed by Anne Barnard and Nada Homsi from Beirut, Lebanon; Rod Nordland from Tal Abyad, Syria; Thomas Erdbrink from Tehran; Ivan Nechepurenko from Moscow; and an employee of The New York Times from Damascus, Syria.

A version of this article appears in print on February 10, 2018, on Page A9 of the New York edition with the headline: Israel Unleashes Military Attack on Syria After Iranian Drone


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/...n-syria.html?referer=https://news.google.com/


.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Russian troops were involved in Iranian-Syrian clash with Israel


Feb 10, 2018 @ 11:48
Binyamin Netanyahu, Damascus,
Hizbollah, Iran, Israeli Air Force,
northern Israel, Russia, Syria





The Syrian anti-air missiles which hit an Israeli F-16 early Saturday, Feb. 10, are part of a system operated with and commanded by the Russians from their Kheimim air base. The F-16 was shot down during an Israeli air strike against the Iranian facility at the T-4 air base near Palmyra, which launched a UAV into Israeli airspace that morning. The ongoing clash has therefore gone way beyond an Israeli confrontation with Syria and Iran and marks a serious deterioration in the security situation on Israel’s northern border.

It is unlikely that Israel’s attempt through its diplomatic channels to calm the situation and “restore the status quo ante” will succeed.

This situation underwent a fundamental strategic change when Iran sent a UAV over Israel from a Syrian base it shares also with the Russians.

It may be assumed that the Russian command, which keeps a close eye on all Syria’s air facilities, was in the know about the Iranian operation and was not surprised when Israeli warplanes retaliated.

One of those jets was shot down and its two pilots landed safely in northern Israel. One of them was badly injured.

A second, much broader wave of Israeli air strikes against a dozen Syrian and Iranian targets later Saturday morning, was also attacked by air defense missiles that were fired from Lebanon as well. This has brought Hizballah into the Syrian-Iranian-Russian equation, and even the Lebanese army. Civilian air traffic was consequently halted in northern Israel.

The parties involved in the incident don’t yet appear ready to call it a day. Each is holding out to have the last word, say DEBKAfile’s strategic analysts.

As matters stood at 11 a.m. Saturday morning,

Israel and the IDF had come off worst, although another wave of Israeli air strikes was then launched against a broad range of Iranian and Syrian targets.

The downing of an air force jet by a Syrian anti-air weapon, mostly likely an SA-5 (whose range extends into northern Israel) has not been lightly dismissed. All the same, Jerusalem reportedly appealed to Washington and Moscow to use their good services for cutting the clash short. This set a tone in direct contrast to the recent, over-the-top rhetoric of Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, especially his unnecessary comment that a two-front conflict is in store in both Syria and Lebanon; and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s warnings to hostile forces, “Don’t test us.” That is exactly what Iran and Syria tried to do on Saturday morning.

It is too soon to tell how this confrontation will play out.

It is still ongoing. As for Russia, DEBKAfile has repeatedly stressed that the regular dialogue Netanyahu conducts with President Vladimir Putin is of limited value. The two leaders have achieved a certain measure of understanding but, in any situation, Putin is sue to be guided solely by Moscow’s strategic interests – even at Israel’s expense.


https://www.debka.com/russian-troops-involved-iranian-syrian-clash-israel/



.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Israel: In New 'Large-scale Strike,' Military Bombs 12 Syrian, Iranian Targets

Earlier Saturday, Israel downs Iran drone, strikes Syria ■ Israeli F-16 shot down, pilots safe but one in serious condition ■ Rocket sirens sound throughout northern Israel for second time

Yaniv KubovichJack Khoury
Noa LandauNoa Shpigel
February 10, 2018

The Israeli army said Saturday morning it has carried out a fresh 'large-scale strike' against 12 Iranian and Syrian targets in Syria.

The attack is the latest in a series of cross-border exchanges, which began when an Iranian drone was intercepted by Israel over Israel. In response to the provocation, the IDF attacked Iranian targets in Syria.

>> Israel-Syria-Iran flare-up: With newfound confidence, Assad moves from threats to action | Analysis

For the second time Saturday morning, rocket sirens sounded in Israel's north. Shortly afterwards, Syrian state TV reported explosions in the Damascus area, calling them new "Israeli aggression."

According to the Israeli army, Syrian anti-aircraft missiles targeted an Israeli F-16, prompting the pilots to eject. The plane went down in northern Israel. The two pilots were taken to the hospital in stable condition.

2122523796.png

Missile contrails seen in Israel during overnight strike in Syria
Israel Struggles to Draw New Red Lines in Russia’s Syria Playground
To really understand the Middle East and stay up-to-date, subscribe to Haaretz

IDF Spokesperson Brigadier General Ronen Manelis said "We identified an Iranian drone UAV which took off from Syrian territory. The drone was identified by IAF systems and was downed by an IAF helicopter. The Iranian drone fell in our territory and is in our possession."

"As part of the country's defenses, sirens were activated but there was no danger for the residents of Beit She'an. It was decided to attack the trailer from which the Iranians launched the UAV. This was a surgical action deep in Syria, target destroyed."

"This is a serious Iranian attack on Israeli territory. Iran is dragging the region into a situation in which it doesn't know how it will end. We are prepared for a variety of incidents...whoever is responsible for this incident is the one who will pay the price."



https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...rmy-bombs-12-syrian-iranian-targets-1.5806621


.
 

MCP

International
International Member
_99966793_79a2f435-5292-468f-997a-8fb8798482d6.jpg



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43014081

An Israeli F-16 fighter jet has crashed after being hit by Syrian air defences during an offensive in Syria, the Israeli military says.

The two pilots parachuted to safety before the crash in northern Israel. It is believed to be the first time Israel has lost a jet in the Syrian conflict.

The plane was hit during air strikes in response to an Iranian drone launch into Israeli territory, Israel says.

The drone was shot down. Israel later launched further strikes in Syria.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) say they hit aerial defence batteries and Iranian military sites in the latest strikes.

Israeli air strikes in Syria are not unusual, the BBC's Middle East correspondent Tom Bateman says, but the loss of an Israeli fighter jet marks a serious escalation.

In other developments in the Syrian conflict on Saturday:

  • A Turkish helicopter was shot down as the country continued its offensive against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria. Two soldiers on board were killed, the Turkish military says
  • UN Human Rights Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein said the past week was one of the bloodiest in Syria since the conflict began in 2011 - with at least 277 civilian deaths reported
How did events unfold on Saturday morning?
The Israeli military says a "combat helicopter successfully intercepted an Iranian UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle] that was launched from Syria and infiltrated Israel".

It tweeted footage which it says shows the drone flying into Israeli territory before being hit.

Skip Twitter post by @LTCJonathan
Original footage showing #Iranian UAV infiltrating and then shot down over Israel, and #IDF strike on Iranian command vehicle in #Syria pic.twitter.com/Sz6poAOdjc

— Jonathan Conricus (@LTCJonathan) February 10, 2018
Report
End of Twitter post by @LTCJonathan

In a further response, the IDF "targeted Iranian targets in Syria", according to the military. The mission deep inside Syrian territory was successfully completed, it said.

After coming under Syrian anti-aircraft fire, the F-16's two crew members ejected and were later taken to hospital. One of them was "severely injured as a result of an emergency evacuation", the IDF said.

It is the first time Israel has lost an aircraft in combat since 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon by a Hezbollah rocket, the Jerusalem Post reports.

All five crew on board - including a female flight mechanic - were killed in that incident.
_99966798_e63d54e2-79e5-48ea-8680-52b6807414a4.jpg


Anti-aircraft fire smoke over the Syrian-Israeli border in the Golan Heights

Alert sirens sounded in areas of northern Israel and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights because of Syrian anti-aircraft fire.

Residents reported hearing a number of explosions and heavy aerial activity in the area near Israel's borders with Jordan and Syria.
_99966682_mediaitem99966681.jpg


Syrian state media quoted a military source as saying that the country's air defences had opened fire in response to Israeli "aggression" against a military base on Saturday, hitting "more than one plane".

What did Israel do next?
Israel launched its second wave of strikes in Syria. Eight of the Syrian targets belonged to the fourth Syrian division near Damascus, IDF spokesman Jonathan Conricus said.

All the Israeli aircraft from this sortie returned safely.

"Syrians are playing with fire when they allow Iranians to attack Israel," the spokesman warned.

He added that Israel was willing to exact a heavy price in response but was "are not looking to escalate the situation".

Meanwhile Iran and the Tehran-backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon - which are allied with the Syrian government - dismissed reports that an Iranian drone had entered Israeli airspace as a "lie".

Russia expressed "serious concern" over the Israeli air strikes and called for all sides to show restraint.

What is the Iranian presence in Syria?
Iran is Israel's arch-enemy, and Iranian troops have been fighting rebel groups since 2011.

Tehran has sent military advisers, volunteer militias and, reportedly, hundreds of fighters from its Quds Force, the overseas arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

It is also believed to have supplied thousands of tonnes of weaponry and munitions to help President Bashar al-Assad's forces and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah, which is fighting on Syria's side.

Tehran has faced accusations that it is seeking to establish not just an arc of influence but a logistical land supply line from Iran through to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A powerful new element
Analysis by BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus

For years Israel has been striking at weapons stores and other facilities in Syria with a single goal - to disrupt and, as far as possible, to prevent advanced Iranian missiles being delivered to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Syria has often been the conduit for these shipments, but the changing balance of power there, with the Assad regime's survival bolstered by Iranian help, has introduced a powerful new element - a direct Iranian role in the crisis.

A more confident Iran is alleged by Israel to be setting up bases in Syria (whether for its own or its proxy Shia Muslim militia forces is unclear).

But it is also alleged to be developing missile factories, both there and in Lebanon, to make the supply lines to Hezbollah less vulnerable.

Israel's campaign to disrupt missile supplies is becoming ever more complex.

And Iran risks becoming a direct actor in this conflict, ever closer to Israel's own borders.

_99967022_israel_jet_crash_v3_640-nc.png
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
The next Iranian-Israeli engagement in Syria is due in late April, early May

It is then that Tehran will try to move a special Russian-backed Iraqi Shiite force from southern Iraq into Syria and so expand its anti-Israel war front.


Feb 12, 2018 @ 15:09 Iran, Iraqi Shiite militia, Iraqi-Syrian border, Israeli Air Force, Lebanon, Russia, US special forces





Since the Israeli Air Force hit a dozen Syrian and Iranian military targets on Saturday, Feb. 10, certain Israeli leaders have been vying for the most anti-Iran speeches (“They will never forget their next lesson” – Transport Minister Yisrael Katz; “We won’t let Iran set up a forward command” OC IDF’s Northern Command, Maj. Gen. Yoel Strick”).


However, the plans Iran has in store for the next round may tax them with making good on their warnings, although one at least comes after the fact. Iran is already running three forward commands in Syria – one in Damascus, one at Abu Kamal in the east and a third outside Aleppo.

Iran’s next challenge to Israel is likely to be more extensive than a lone Iranian drone intrusion and may start far from Israel’s northern border. Russia and Iran are trying to run a two-way, cross-border military movement between Iraq and Syria, which US forces in Syria have so far frustrated.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the United States is in the process of establishing a new “Border Security Force” in Syria, which is composed mainly of Kurdish fighters.

Iran and Russia are meanwhile building and training an elite “rapid deployment force” based on Iraqi Shiites. One of its functions will be to expand the front against Israel in both Syria and Lebanon. It is expected that the coming crossing into Syria of the Iraqi Shiite force may be used to detach a section for service on the Lebanese-Israeli border. Last month, an Iraqi Shiite militia chief traveled to Lebanon to inspect Israeli positions on that border. .

The Iraqi group is composed of 5,000 Shiite fighters, who are undergoing special training course for combat in Syria. They were handpicked from two high-performance Iraqi Shiite militias: One is the Nujaba of Kaabil (Movement of the Part of God), which is the Iraqi version of the Lebanese Hizballah and is headed by Sheikh Akram al-Kaabi. It has four sub-units, the Ammar Ibn Yasir Brigade, the Liwa al-Hamad – Praise Brigade, the Liwa al-Imam al Hassan al-Mujtaba – Imam Hssan the Chosen, and the Golan Liberation Brigade. The other militia is the Abud al-Fadl al-Abbas Forces.

This big difference between this elite Iraqi force and the other Shiite militias Tehran deploys in Syria is that it will be equipped with an air force, according to DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources. Russian and Iranian air force officers are setting up an aviation unit called the Combat Helicopters Directorates, to consist of dozens of Russian Mil Mi-17 assault and freight choppers as well as Iranian Shaed 285 attack choppers.

The bulk of the new force is expected to be ready to start moving west in the course of April and cross over into southeast Syria in the regions of Abu Kamal and Deir ez-Zour by early May at the latest. So far, the American forces deployed in western Iraq and southeastern Syria, centering in Al Tanf, have used live air force and artillery fire to push the vanguard back from the Syrian border.

A US special operations contingent also frustrated a move in the opposite direction by Syrian and Hizballah forces trying to cross the Euphrates to the eastern bank across a floating bridge laid by the Russians. They were heading to link up with the incoming Iraqi militias. (Read DEBKAfile’s exclusive report on Feb. 8). This major US operation that involved air force, artillery and commandos was somehow missed by the Israeli politicians and analysts who commented on how the US had abandoned the Syrian arena when they discussed the Israeli air offensive of last Saturday.

Despite every effort to block the Iraqi force from reaching Syria, it may find a small gap in the 1,000km long Iraqi-Syrian border and manage to slip through. Israel’s government and military leaders will then face a decision that is much harder than whether to destroy the command vehicle controlling an Iranian drone. Part of the difficulty will be that before actin, Israel will have to keep an eye on the state of relations between the US and Russia which are at a low ebb at this time and how this plays out on the ground.


https://www.debka.com/next-iranian-israeli-engagement-syria-due-late-april-early-may/


.
 
Top