This is a discussion on Why is the US retreating from Syria? within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Israel's interests are best served by having a unified and strong Syrian government - because such a government isn't going ...
Israel's interests are best served by having a unified and strong Syrian government - because such a government isn't going to take on Israel.
Their latest strike appears to have been intended to take out some stray manpads systems intended for use in the Lebanon or along the Israeli border - and there'd be a lot more of that if Syria fragments. This is part of the reason Syria has remained untouched by international action - Turkey and Israel aren't fond of Assad but at least he's a predictable neighbour.
Cynically, dictators are easier to get along with than fragmented warring factions with ready access to weapons of all sorts.
With respect to Syria perhaps choosing to let Israel attack it, I don't think that's valid - -they're legally entitled to the right of self defence and they've certainly shot down Turkish aircraft in international airspace before now. More pertinently, Israel has penetrated Syrian airspace several times over the previous years, when Syria's air defence was in much better shape.
If the Syrians had a clear shot at an Israeli attacker, I'm sure they'd take the opportunity.
Israel's interests are best served by having a unified and strong Syrian government - because such a government isn't going to take on Israel.
Their latest strike appears to have been intended to take out some stray manpads systems intended for use in the Lebanon or along the Israeli border - and there'd be a lot more of that if Syria fragments. This is part of the reason Syria has remained untouched by international action - Turkey and Israel aren't fond of Assad but at least he's a predictable neighbour.
Cynically, dictators are easier to get along with than fragmented warring factions with ready access to weapons of all sorts.
With respect to Syria perhaps choosing to let Israel attack it, I don't think that's valid - -they're legally entitled to the right of self defence and they've certainly shot down Turkish aircraft in international airspace before now. More pertinently, Israel has penetrated Syrian airspace several times over the previous years, when Syria's air defence was in much better shape.
If the Syrians had a clear shot at an Israeli attacker, I'm sure they'd take the opportunity.
Well thats a very valid reason you brought up as i did not think about it, and yeah you are right a dictator like Assad is pretty much predictable (at least in his case), but i was drawing a link between Iran and Syria as tensions mount up between Israel, Syria and Iran i wonder if this was such a smart move of Israel to hit those weapons.
Because as you said it yourself, Syria does have the authority to defend itself.
Now lets assume they do and Israel on their turn respond to that.
Then its only a very small step for Iran to legally come to the aid of one of its core allies, then that bit of immunity that Israel has is virtually gone as the war is not being separated, by a unwilling Saudi Arabia, or a Unhelpful, Jordan / Iraq.
My point here is that this Syria thing is not just Syria but Iran is heaving some sort of hand in it as well, even if its just supporting Assad, meaning this can well be used as a proxy.
So perhaps that Assad's regime did not want to take it that far, and did choose to ignore the attack knowing that if they respond that it would drag their allies into a war they might not recover from.
See my point? So honestly what do you think that Syria (And allies/friends) and Israel + Community is going to do next? Will there be more strikes? Is Syria going to respond forcefully? How do you think that the next few weeks will play out based upon the current events?
...Because as you said it yourself, Syria does have the authority to defend itself. Now lets assume they do and Israel on their turn respond to that....
If Syria shoots down an Israeli aircraft on a bombing aid over Syria, I expect the Israeli response to be to analyse how the Syrians did it, in order to make sure that next time the Syrians won't succeed. Why would they do anything else? Retaliation? For what?
The only follow-up I'd expect is if the shoot down caused the Israeli raid to fail to destroy its target. In that case, if the Israelis think the target is important enough, they'll have another go - this time taking into account what the Syrians have shown they can do.
If Syria retaliated to an Israeli raid by firing missiles at Israeli cities, or something similar, then there would certainly be Israel retaliation, but that sort of Syrian reaction isn't easy to justify as self-defence.
If Syria shoots down an Israeli aircraft on a bombing aid over Syria, I expect the Israeli response to be to analyse how the Syrians did it, in order to make sure that next time the Syrians won't succeed. Why would they do anything else? Retaliation? For what?
The only follow-up I'd expect is if the shoot down caused the Israeli raid to fail to destroy its target. In that case, if the Israelis think the target is important enough, they'll have another go - this time taking into account what the Syrians have shown they can do.
If Syria retaliated to an Israeli raid by firing missiles at Israeli cities, or something similar, then there would certainly be Israel retaliation, but that sort of Syrian reaction isn't easy to justify as self-defence.
Yeah i can see what you mean and i have to agree, on a flip side Israel does not want to see weapons ending up in Lebanon or in terrorist hands, but on the other hand the amount of pressure on the Syrian regime might force them to do exactly that to avoid that the weapons become available to their opponents, so i understand both sides here, that said i personally believe that Israel is playing a dangerous game here. Look at it this way, Syria is pretty much a dead end right?
So bombing Israel either using air or ground based weapons might be the only thing left for Assad...lets call it going out with a bang.
I mean lets be realistic what options does Assad really have left here? Other then shooting himself, Turning himself over or hide in the shadows?
Its pretty clear that his days are numbered but he also does have to maintain his standings with his current staff and members and so, defending himself against Israel might be the only thing left he has to do, even if its just to please his commanders and to keep the loyalty up amongst his followers.
Bit of propaganda here and a bit of pretext there and he can prolong his reign a little more.
And thats what he needs a little more, because his army is creating havoc amongst his enemies and the population is hardly fighting anymore.
The only people who are really hurting him and his army are the specific radical groups (Taliban like warriors and freedom warriors) who are gaining more and more respect and ground as they fight on the side of the population against Assad.
Not to mention that they are heavy armed, reasonable well trained and well funded.
So if Assad can please his military brass he might even be able to stay on.
Now i am not saying that a war with Israel would be good for him, but if Israel persist in bombing targets then war might be the only way out for Assad which enable him to bring out the big guns and the rest of his arsenal and slam down on his people even harder then he did claiming that Israel did it or he was fighting Israel incursions, see what i mean? Because at this rate it becomes increasingly harder to verify whats really going on in Syria as reports are sketchy at best, and this might enable him to pull another rabbit out of his head..
Assad should leg it as soon as feasible, same as all the other dictators in previous situations. Like the rest, he'll hang on for way too long and end up being strung up by piano wire from a lamp post.
Israel has no vested interest in becoming embroiled - if they intervene on a persistent basis, they may well serve to prop up the regime by crystallising support around Assad, stalling the uprising, and neither are they served by the uprising succeeding. Ditto Turkey - although Turkey's borders are under more pressure from refugees.
It's an appalling situation to be looking at in terms of a humanitarian tragedy but trying to unpick this with a bunch of JDAM's isn't going to happen.
Their latest strike appears to have been intended to take out some stray manpads systems intended for use in the Lebanon or along the Israeli border - and there'd be a lot more of that if Syria fragments.
The claim put forward is that Israel destroyed a SA-17 Buk battery on the road to Lebanon. That is a big step up from a MANPAD, of which Hezbollah already has many.
Mods, with all due respect, what hapened to forum rules, this is 'opinion' ain't it? - "hanging on for 'too long'"? !!
What do we know about Syria anyway, vis-a-vis, DefenceTalk?
Where's proof on 'Assad is bad'?
i.e.: I watch Aljazeera/CNN... none available.
All I see are, lots of black flags with writing on 'em - no idea what they mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan
Assad should leg it as soon as feasible, same as all the other dictators in previous situations. Like the rest, he'll hang on for way too long and end up being strung up by piano wire from a lamp post.
Israel has no vested interest in becoming embroiled - if they intervene on a persistent basis, they may well serve to prop up the regime by crystallising support around Assad, stalling the uprising, and neither are they served by the uprising succeeding. Ditto Turkey - although Turkey's borders are under more pressure from refugees.
It's an appalling situation to be looking at in terms of a humanitarian tragedy but trying to unpick this with a bunch of JDAM's isn't going to happen.
Nothing in the rules about expressing an opinion as long as it's stated as such - and in my opinion, for what it's worth, I believe that Assad will make the same mistake that Saddam and Ghadaffi both made and will fail to get clear of an imploding country.
Proof that Assad is bad ? Well, I didn't make any comment about any such thing - simply that I think the existing regime will fail at some point. If you take the time to look around, you'll see that Assad's regime has some wrinkles...
Roger that StobieWan!
I guess he's probably too deep in this match to do much just now.
Would it be rude to say Assad's outcome on this is pretty much 'sealed', I mean, the rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters(?) are already knocking on the Damascus' gates!
I personally believe The States wants to help but somehow at a loss on the how.
Those fighters don't look too Israel friendly either - or would it be possible for Israel to coax them to be friends?
If you take the time to look around, you'll see that Assad's regime has some wrinkles...
No doubts there at all but so does almost every Arab country which the West has long courted and declared as friends and allies. Back in 1982, when Assad the Elder razed Hama to the ground - in response to a declaration of war by the Muslim Brotherhood - the West and the Sunni Arabs didn't raise much of a fuss. When he entered Lebanon to aid the Christians in their civil war against various Muslim groups, Israel and the West welcomed it.
The problem for Assad is even if he manages to leave, he's aware that there's no guarantee that in the future he won't end up in the ICJ. I'm more concerned about what happens to the minorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Himal
Those fighters don't look too Israel friendly either - or would it be possible for Israel to coax them to be friends?
To answer that question, a number of important questions have to first be asked :
1. In the event of Assad falling, will Israel be willing to return the Golan to Syria? No matter who rules Syria after Assad, what is certain is that the Syrian people will continue to demand that the Golan is returned.
2. How much of the Golan will Israel return?
3. What pre-conditions will Israel insist on before it returns the Golan? The Israeli's off course will insist on full and normal relations with Syria's new rulers but what if Syria says that full and normal relations will only be established until Israel abides by a longstanding UN resolution to return the Golan and also to seek a permanent soluton to the Palestinian issue? And what if Syria's new rulers [despite being Sunni] declare that they wil continue to maintain relations with Hezbollah and Iran, and demand that Israel also settle the logstanding issue of the Shebaa Farms and that the territory be returned to Lebanon?
No doubts there at all but so does almost every Arab country which the West has long courted and declared as friends and allies
No indeed but I was simply replying to the suggestion that there was no evidence that Assad had done anything wrong.
I think the only way out of this for everyone is a political settlement - getting a clean solution militarily doesn't seem possible - the opposition groups are badly fragmented, only connected by a common enemy and it's now abundantly clear that arming 'em is storing up some major security risks 12-24 months down the line.
None of the neighbours are keen on pitching in, largely because the outcomes will only be predictable in the sense that they will be poor.
Summary, this'll drag on until either the bulk of the rebels put a united front for long enough to get some wider assistance, Assad is killed by one side or another, or Assad plugs into some sort of political solution.
3. What pre-conditions will Israel insist on before it returns the Golan? The Israeli's off course will insist on full and normal relations with Syria's new rulers but what if Syria says that full and normal relations will only be established until Israel abides by a longstanding UN resolution to return the Golan and also to seek a permanent soluton to the Palestinian issue? And what if Syria's new rulers [despite being Sunni] declare that they wil continue to maintain relations with Hezbollah and Iran, and demand that Israel also settle the logstanding issue of the Shebaa Farms and that the territory be returned to Lebanon?
Israel would agree to nothing.
First off, for anyone to sit across Israel, would mean she's recognised as a state - nope, didn't think so.
Recall the recent spate of 'rocketeering' by Hamas(it died as strangely and abruptly as it started), and folks at CNN were seriously looking at how Westbank should be returned and stuff, when the host calmly suggested maybe Israel is too deep into Westbank to 'simply' back away!
Golan Heights back to the Syrians?
Don't think so.
Situation in Syaria is like metal fire, as inhuman as it may sound, global folks would just have to wait for it to die down - on its own. Dousing water wont' help, and don't see a shipped-overnight solution here either.
Whether Al-Assad remains on power for another year or so or the opposition forces come in to power, the infrastructure of the country has already been destroyed. The intransience of the civil war will devastate the country more and that will be win-win situation for Israel as one of its major military fronts will be extremely weakened and that will enable Israeli forces to violate Syrian borders like Palestine and Lebanon.
Asymmetric war fare with Gorilla organizations is Israeli area of expertise and that will also legitimize its offensives action to the weakened Syria on the pretext of terrorism.
Israel would agree to a deal if it was to its advantage and it got what it wanted. There has and continues to be ''behind the scenes'' talks between Israel and the Arabs and despite Israel perpetually declaring that it will not negotiate with ''terrorists'', it has done so in the past and will do so again if needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Himal
First off, for anyone to sit across Israel, would mean she's recognised as a state - nope, didn't think so.
As long as Israel - in violation of UN Resolution 242 - continues to occupy land it doesn't own, no Arab state will be willing to officially recognise Israel [even if they did which Israel should they recognise, pre-1967 or post 1967 Isreal??]. The issue of the Arabs not recognising Israel has not prevented both sides from holding talks before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by explorer9
Whether Al-Assad remains on power for another year or so or the opposition forces come in to power, the infrastructure of the country has already been destroyed.
The key question we should really be asking is what kind of post Assad Syria will emerge, given all the violence that has occurred.
And what will the response of the West be if the victorious rebels decide to be nasty to the Alawites, Christians, Druze and other monorities? Will NATO and Arab League troops enter the picture to protect these minorities - highly doubt it.
The West of course will off course demand that the rebels hand over Syria's stock of chemicals to be destroyed. But what if the rebels say that the chemicals are the property of the free and democratic Syrian people and they will be maintained to safeguard Syria against foreign aggression and that as long as Israel has nukes and refuses to handover the Golan, Syria's chemicals will be needed as a deterrent.
As usual, with it comes to the Middle East, there are more unanswered questions than answers.
Last edited by STURM; February 10th, 2013 at 12:09 PM.
Catch-22 !
I guess Israel would continously chat behind the scene to size things up, vis-a-vis, if prevailing situation is to their advantage, before getting all dressed up for the 'official' peace talks.., and then there're folks like Iran...
News out of Syria on 'freedom fighters' doesn't sound too 'freedom' friendly, at least not the west/globally recognised version. It's more like 'women, wrap yourselves up - right now' kind!
Add weapon grade chemical to that equation.
Scary.
