At the same time that president Obama was backing away from his prior statements on Syria and attempting to redefine what a "red line" is, the Israeli airforce launched an attack on some weapons depots in Syria. The facts of the attack are murky, but it appears that they are these:
1) Israeli planes flew over Lebanon near Syria and launched missiles or "floater" bombs in the attack.
2) The target was a building holding long range ground to ground missiles that were to be shipped to Hezbollah. The missiles were not described in detail, except to say that they would have been "game changers". That means that they would have increased the capabilities of Hezbollah either by giving that group missiles of increased range, missiles that could carry chemical weapons, or some other advancement to threaten Israel.
3) Both the Assad government and the rebel alliance have denied any knowledge of such an Israeli attack. The media says that the Israeli government confirmed the attack, but that government issued a statement denying giving any such confirmation.
As things go in the region, all of this most likely means that Israel did indeed launch an attack on a Syrian position. The Israelis probably destroyed some sophisticated missiles and maybe more. The rebels do not want to be seen as receiving Israeli help in their struggle. Assad does not want to be embarrassed by the utter helplessness of his forces in the face of the Israeli attack. Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying any military actions of this sort.
The end result of the attack is that Israel is safer, Hezbollah is weaker, and the Assad government has fewer weapons to use on its own people. In case president Obama is reading this, let me explain that this all means the action was good for Israel and good for the Syrian people. Sometimes, Mr. President, you really do have to get off your backside and take action.
1) Israeli planes flew over Lebanon near Syria and launched missiles or "floater" bombs in the attack.
2) The target was a building holding long range ground to ground missiles that were to be shipped to Hezbollah. The missiles were not described in detail, except to say that they would have been "game changers". That means that they would have increased the capabilities of Hezbollah either by giving that group missiles of increased range, missiles that could carry chemical weapons, or some other advancement to threaten Israel.
3) Both the Assad government and the rebel alliance have denied any knowledge of such an Israeli attack. The media says that the Israeli government confirmed the attack, but that government issued a statement denying giving any such confirmation.
As things go in the region, all of this most likely means that Israel did indeed launch an attack on a Syrian position. The Israelis probably destroyed some sophisticated missiles and maybe more. The rebels do not want to be seen as receiving Israeli help in their struggle. Assad does not want to be embarrassed by the utter helplessness of his forces in the face of the Israeli attack. Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying any military actions of this sort.
The end result of the attack is that Israel is safer, Hezbollah is weaker, and the Assad government has fewer weapons to use on its own people. In case president Obama is reading this, let me explain that this all means the action was good for Israel and good for the Syrian people. Sometimes, Mr. President, you really do have to get off your backside and take action.
No comments:
Post a Comment