Does Assad Dare to strike back?

[+and-then]

Looks like those vaunted S-300's haven't been activated yet.... oops

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/27/evidence-points-to-secret-israeli-strike-on-syrian-missile-launchers/

[Mr.United_Nations]

dont think so, Israel have been doing this lots of times and have had no problems

[RavenHawk]

What gets me is that the Obama regime leaked confirmation of that strike on Latakia yet they will call someone like Snowdon a traitor. The double standard is alive and well.

[+and-then]

dont think so, Israel have been doing this lots of times and have had no problems

I'm not sure "lots" is accurate but it seems when they find that a large shipment is planning they fly in an make them go boom just like (important point) they SAID they would in advance. Don't arm their enemies and no worries about going boom

[Leonardo]

Why is Israeli aggression, which can only inflame the situation over there, being cheered?

[+and-then]

Why is Israeli aggression, which can only inflame the situation over there, being cheered?

I posted this because I am happy that the Israelis are keeping their promise to Assad and the world, Leo. Netanyahu PUBLICLY stated that hi tech weapons transfers to Hezbollah would be interdicted. Assad is basically being forced by Iran to be a pipeline to Hezbollah and Netanyahu is just TCB. Surely you understand that if Israel was intent on toppling Assad they could do it with very limited use of the IDF? They have no interest in a regime change there but they have a very real interest in being able to use airpower over Lebanon the next time the Hezbollah decide to bombard Israel. The fact that you characterize this as an aggression just points out your bias against Israel - complain about it to those who care, I'm sure you'll have a willing audience here.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

It would be game over for Assad I feel,he can only fight on so many fronts.

[RavenHawk]

Why is Israeli aggression, which can only inflame the situation over there, being cheered?

The situation is already inflamed. Israeli aggression is only a reaction to that in order to defend herself.

[Almagest]

Why is Israeli aggression, which can only inflame the situation over there, being cheered?

Because it's one step closer to the end times I guess. Let them demonstrate their military might all they want. I'll be pretty annoyed though if Australians are forced to bleed because they bit of more than they can chew.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Why is Israeli aggression, which can only inflame the situation over there, being cheered?

Because if Hezbollah gets hands on these weapons, then Israel will see it as a great security threat

[Leonardo]

I posted this because I am happy that the Israelis are keeping their promise to Assad and the world, Leo. Netanyahu PUBLICLY stated that hi tech weapons transfers to Hezbollah would be interdicted.

Are the weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, or is that just the party line Netanyahu is using to excuse attacks against a sovereign state?

The attacks have been against the Syrian forces, not Hezbollah. This is Israeli aggression against the Syrian state.

And, I must ask, if the Israeli's can target these weapons while they are in Syrian hands, why can't they wait and target them if they fall into the hands of Hezbollah? At least then they would have some justification for attacking them.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

Are the weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, or is that just the party line Netanyahu is using to excuse attacks against a sovereign state?

The attacks have been against the Syrian forces, not Hezbollah. This is Israeli aggression against the Syrian state.

And, I must ask, if the Israeli's can target these weapons while they are in Syrian hands, why can't they wait and target them if they fall into the hands of Hezbollah? At least then they would have some justification for attacking them.

The simple answer to all of your questions would be that ' Israel needs to defend! '

Who gets crushed or which country borders are not respected in that process - that is not important at all when your country is threatened by so many advanced military forces of that region, what can they do - defend or get wiped of the map?

Its better to destroy potential problem in its root and thats why weapons dont get near Hezbollah.

[jeem]

My commonsense tell me that Assad is supposed to use these weapon against the rebel then why would he give these weapons to Hezbollah.

Transferring weapon to Hezbollah is nothing but a Zionist propaganda.Can those Zionist show proof that they were getting in the hands of Hezbollah?

Edited January 28, 2014 by jeem

[+and-then]

Are the weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, or is that just the party line Netanyahu is using to excuse attacks against a sovereign state?

The attacks have been against the Syrian forces, not Hezbollah. This is Israeli aggression against the Syrian state.

And, I must ask, if the Israeli's can target these weapons while they are in Syrian hands, why can't they wait and target them if they fall into the hands of Hezbollah? At least then they would have some justification for attacking them.

Because once they are in Hezbollah's hands they will be quickly dispersed. Why create more danger and work when they can be hit while centrally located? What world do you live in? Assad was publicly warned of the consequences and he chose to attempt to help arm Israel's enemies. Eventually there will be a miscalculation by his Iranian handlers and the whole region will burn.

Because it's one step closer to the end times I guess. Let them demonstrate their military might all they want. I'll be pretty annoyed though if Australians are forced to bleed because they bit of more than they can chew.

I'm not sure if that's a jab at my beliefs or not but it doesn't matter. Truth is it doesn't matter any longer who believes and who doesn't. The curtain is about to rise on this and sitting there with eyes closed isn't going to help. As to Aussie involvement I agree - I hope no US forces bleed for it either. Israel, if left alone by Obama, can handle the business at hand.

[+and-then]

The simple answer to all of your questions would be that ' Israel needs to defend! '

Who gets crushed or which country borders are not respected in that process - that is not important at all when your country is threatened by so many advanced military forces of that region, what can they do - defend or get wiped of the map?

Its better to destroy potential problem in its root and thats why weapons dont get near Hezbollah.

If your country was constantly being threatened with destruction, had rockets falling at random on civilian population centers and the world just looked away then I suspect you would want to defend, also. No country owes a certain sacrifice of citizens lives before they act to protect them. To act as though there is no real threat is not credible. Frankly, I get the impression that Assad doesn't really care about what happens to these weapons that are being forced on him and through his country. It's a distraction he'd rather not have just now is my guess.

[+and-then]

My commonsense tell me that Assad is supposed to use these weapon against the rebel then why would he give these weapons to Hezbollah.

Transferring weapon to Hezbollah is nothing but a Zionist propaganda.Can those Zionist show proof that they were getting in the hands of Hezbollah?

You miss the point, jeem. They have no DUTY to prove anything. If the situation were different, if rockets were not falling nearly constantly over the years, if various groups and governments in the region were not openly calling for the demise of the state of Israel - and then the IAF bombed Syria then it would indeed be an act of unwarranted aggression and a cause of war. As it is Assad is lucky they are allowing him to live and retain power. He knows that to tangle with Israel at this point is to quickly lose his place and very likely his life.

[RavenHawk]

Are the weapons being transferred to Hezbollah, or is that just the party line Netanyahu is using to excuse attacks against a sovereign state?

It’s more than just the party line. They are working on credible intel from multiple sources. Not that I’m giving anything away, but I can’t help but think that Israel has at least one mole in the Syrian command structure. And besides, what purpose does attacking a sovereign state just to attack it get you? That is totally out of character for Israel. Israel will try to beat you to the punch but they don’t attack for no reason.

The attacks have been against the Syrian forces, not Hezbollah. This is Israeli aggression against the Syrian state.

If it was against the Syrian state then you would see a campaign similar to what happened in Lebanon in 2006. As it is, it has been a surgical strike on known weapon cashes. Just as the attack on the Syrian reactor in 2011.

And, I must ask, if the Israeli's can target these weapons while they are in Syrian hands, why can't they wait and target them if they fall into the hands of Hezbollah? At least then they would have some justification for attacking them.

There are many reasons. One is that this opportunity probably presented the least loss of life. It also sends a message to Assad that Israel will not be caught off guard while the civil war is raging. Another reason is that because they can. Justification? Seriously? Hezbollah with WMDs is justification enough.

[Leonardo]

It's more than just the party line. They are working on credible intel from multiple sources. Not that I'm giving anything away, but I can't help but think that Israel has at least one mole in the Syrian command structure. And besides, what purpose does attacking a sovereign state just to attack it get you? That is totally out of character for Israel. Israel will try to beat you to the punch but they don't attack for no reason.

Israel doesn't want Syria to have effective, modern weaponry. That is reason enough for them to invent a more 'accommodating' reason for their aggression.

If it was against the Syrian state then you would see a campaign similar to what happened in Lebanon in 2006. As it is, it has been a surgical strike on known weapon cashes. Just as the attack on the Syrian reactor in 2011.

If you haven't noticed, the situation in Syria is a little different to the situation in Lebanon in 2006. A small matter of a civil war.

Israel is taking advantage of the inability of the Syrian regime to retaliate. And the 2011 reactor strike has not been confirmed as being a strike on a "weapons cahce". Where did you get that information from?

There are many reasons. One is that this opportunity probably presented the least loss of life. It also sends a message to Assad that Israel will not be caught off guard while the civil war is raging. Another reason is that because they can. Justification? Seriously? Hezbollah with WMDs is justification enough.

The launch systems (Russian built S-300) are not "WMDs". They are surface-to-air systems (i.e. defence systems), not surface-to-surface.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[RavenHawk]

Israel doesn't want Syria to have effective, modern weaponry. That is reason enough for them to invent a more 'accommodating' reason for their aggression.

If that is the case then why doesn’t Israel go after Assad’s tank divisions? Instead of SAMs? Syria also has about 80 Gen4 fighters so Israel is failing in keeping modern weaponry from Assad. So that can’t be a reason.

If you haven't noticed, the situation in Syria is a little different to the situation in Lebanon in 2006. A small matter of a civil war.

That still wouldn’t change a thing if Israel was going after the Syrian state. In fact, they should be using the civil war in order to conquer Syria, but that’s not happening.

Israel is taking advantage of the inability of the Syrian regime to retaliate. And the 2011 reactor strike has not been confirmed as being a strike on a "weapons cahce". Where did you get that information from?

It is taking advantage but Israel isn’t pushing it any further than keeping weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah. It was a nuclear reactor right? If its primary function was going to be for power, they wouldn’t have tried to conceal it and they probably would have started to build a new power plant by now. I haven’t heard of one yet.

The launch systems (Russian built S-300) are not "WMDs". They are surface-to-air systems (i.e. defence systems), not surface-to-surface.

I was including them in the class of weapons. The S-300 is definitely not the only system being shipped. And the only reason for Hezbollah to have them is to shoot down Israeli aircraft. It is also a long range missile carrying a 150kg warhead. Some models can carry a nuclear warhead. The S-300 can probably be converted be used against ground targets? They are equipped with contact fuses.

[Leonardo]

That still wouldn't change a thing if Israel was going after the Syrian state. In fact, they should be using the civil war in order to conquer Syria, but that's not happening.

Israel doesn't need to "conquer Syria" to render the Syrian state ineffective as an opponent - in a military or political sense. All they have to do is suppress the State's ability to win the civil war enough so the conflict goes on and on.

They can do this by taking out selected targets - such as advanced weapons systems - without risking the cost, economic and social, of an invasion.

It's nothing more than a cynical ploy by Israel to keep Syria in a state of civil war.

The S-300 can probably be converted be used against ground targets?

No, it cannot, and it is not NBC capable.

And that it is used for interception of aircraft is a given. However, given the capabilities of the system my original question remains, why not wait until they are in the hands of Hezbollah - if that is indeed where they are intended to go - and then destroy them?

Edited January 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[RavenHawk]

Israel doesn't need to "conquer Syria" to render the Syrian state ineffective as an opponent - in a military or political sense. All they have to do is suppress the State's ability to win the civil war enough so the conflict goes on and on.

Israel can nullify Syria in a military sense by having a force better equipped and better trained than Syria. Plus, Israel would command interior lines. As far as the political and civil war go, it would be better for Israel to have stability. The civil war just creates an opportunity for someone else to come in and cause it to spill over boundaries. I think that Israel would prefer the secular Assad and Baath Party rather than extremist sectarian groups. Although, you have Hezbollah and the Alawites supporting Assad.

They can do this by taking out selected targets - such as advanced weapons systems - without risking the cost, economic and social, of an invasion.

That part is exactly right and prudent. But again, they aren’t using this to create more instability.

It's nothing more than a cynical ploy by Israel to keep Syria in a state of civil war.

Then why aren’t they doing it in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan? Or even Iran and Saudi Arabia? I guess the Arab Spring was all an Israeli plot!

[Leonardo]

Israel can nullify Syria in a military sense by having a force better equipped and better trained than Syria. Plus, Israel would command interior lines. As far as the political and civil war go, it would be better for Israel to have stability. The civil war just creates an opportunity for someone else to come in and cause it to spill over boundaries. I think that Israel would prefer the secular Assad and Baath Party rather than extremist sectarian groups. Although, you have Hezbollah and the Alawites supporting Assad.

Then why is Israel destroying regime weapons systems which make that regime more capable of winning the civil conflict?

That part is exactly right and prudent. But again, they aren't using this to create more instability.

You know this, or you guess this?

Then why aren't they doing it in Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan? Or even Iran and Saudi Arabia? I guess the Arab Spring was all an Israeli plot!

They did have a war with Lebanon quite recently - you even mentioned it. Relations between Egypt/Jordan and Israel have been more cordial (or less antagonistic) lately and Israel is talking up the rhetoric, threatening military strikes, against Iran.

And no, I am not suggesting the Arab Spring was "an Israeli plot".

Edited January 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

Israel doesn't want Syria to have effective, modern weaponry. That is reason enough for them to invent a more 'accommodating' reason for their aggression.

If you haven't noticed, the situation in Syria is a little different to the situation in Lebanon in 2006. A small matter of a civil war.

Israel is taking advantage of the inability of the Syrian regime to retaliate. And the 2011 reactor strike has not been confirmed as being a strike on a "weapons cahce". Where did you get that information from?

The launch systems (Russian built S-300) are not "WMDs". They are surface-to-air systems (i.e. defence systems), not surface-to-surface.

Which defense weapons would risk lives of Israeli pilots and cause the Hezzies to try their luck. Leo you know better - you KNOW what will happen if Hezbollah got effective air defense. Do you care at all that southern Lebanon would be laid waste because of the war that would happen? Is your dislike of Israel so rabid you care nothing for the very real consequences others will pay for such stupidity? Here's a clue - if Israel failed to act in it's own interests every time someone accused them of brutality or unfairness they would NEVER act and would have been gone from the region long ago. Ain't happenin' dude...

[Leonardo]

Which defense weapons would risk lives of Israeli pilots and cause the Hezzies to try their luck. Leo you know better - you KNOW what will happen if Hezbollah got effective air defense. Do you care at all that southern Lebanon would be laid waste because of the war that would happen? Is your dislike of Israel so rabid you care nothing for the very real consequences others will pay for such stupidity? Here's a clue - if Israel failed to act in it's own interests every time someone accused them of brutality or unfairness they would NEVER act and would have been gone from the region long ago. Ain't happenin' dude...

and then,

I like you as a person, and when you are not posting in the ME section on UM, but - being very frank - when it comes to the ME (and Israel in particular) you can't see past your own religious/millenial beliefs. I am not going to debate you on what I believe might happen were Israel to decide to stop (or throttle back) its policy of 'aggressive defence', because we will never find common agreement on that.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[RavenHawk]

Then why is Israel destroying regime weapons systems which make that regime more capable of winning the civil conflict?

As you stated, SAMs don’t help win the civil war. They are great at mindless destruction on civilian targets. Assad should have enough aircraft and tanks to win the civil war. I’m not aware of that massive rebel air force threatening the Syrian military.

You know this, or you guess this?

You can call it an educated guess. Knowing the character of the belligerents is key. But then, let me turn it around on you. You know or you guess that Israel is trying to keep Syria in turmoil? As I said before, having an unstable neighbor only increases the danger of the civil war spilling over.

They did have a war with Lebanon quite recently - you even mentioned it. Relations between Egypt/Jordan and Israel have been more cordial (or less antagonistic) lately and Israel is talking up the rhetoric, threatening military strikes, against Iran.

Yes and that war de-clawed Hezbollah for a while and maintained stability. Egypt and Jordan have treaties with Israel. But if Israel is bent on destabilizing these nations, then why not do it now? In a political sense, it probably wouldn’t take much to start a civil war in Egypt between the different factions. And it wouldn’t take much to overthrow King Abdullah in Jordan.

And no, I am not suggesting the Arab Spring was "an Israeli plot".

So now, in an all or nothing proposition, just Syria is? Israel does not need instability in any of her neighbors.