Thread: Syria and Iran conflict resolution

Israel just announced they would not alert the US in the event of an attack on Iran. As we all know this is just to give the US cover and allow us plausible deniability and diplomatic freedom in the aftermath. But is this enough? Thinking it through, how do we avoid all out war with Iran and intervention in Syria? What will be Iran's response to an attack from Israel? How do they bring the fight to Israel? I believe this is where the train is going, pulling our troops out of Afghanistan faster than announced will soon become obvious, where they go is not.

Originally Posted by clarkatticus

Israel just announced they would not alert the US in the event of an attack on Iran. As we all know this is just to give the US cover and allow us plausible deniability and diplomatic freedom in the aftermath. But is this enough? Thinking it through, how do we avoid all out war with Iran and intervention in Syria? What will be Iran's response to an attack from Israel? How do they bring the fight to Israel? I believe this is where the train is going, pulling our troops out of Afghanistan faster than announced will soon become obvious, where they go is not.

These are reasonable questions.

For openers, I would suggest that it was wise of Israel to decline to give the Obama administration the usual heads-up. And not only for the reason you noted--"plausible deniability" is, indeed, probably a part of the equation--but also because the Obama administration has been jaw-droppingly unfriendly to Israel (and the Netanyahu administration, in particular). So Israel should, in my opinion, just do whatever it believes it needs to do, in response to a hostile country in its own neighborhood that poses an existential threat to the tiny state of Israel.

It is likely, I think, that this could lead to a wider war in the Middle East; and maybe even to the start of WWIII, involving Russia, China, and Venezuela, in addition to other nations. Not inevitable; but entirely possible.

Still, I do not believe it should be within America's province to try to dictate to Israel what the latter may or may not do, in its own self-interest...

No military intervention from U.S. for Syria...

Obama Rules Out Military Intervention In Syria, weighs humanitarian corridors
February 29, 2012, Despite his strong words against Bashar Assad’s horrendous treatment of the opposition to his rule, US President Barack Obama Tuesday, Feb. 28, has vetoed plans submitted to him last week for Western-Arab military intervention to stop it, debkafile’s Washington sources report.

He is weighing an alternative plan for setting up “humanitarian corridors” in the most embattled areas. That too would be contingent on Russian endorsement, because Obama believes Moscow holds the key to Assad’s consent - or at least abstention from sending his army to attack the aid routes. The Russians have not so far responded to feelers on this from Washington. Neither have they rescinded their threat to block any such plan if tabled at the Security Council.

Ankara provided the clincher for the US president’s decision against military intervention in Syria by its evasiveness over participation in the operation. The plan has nowhere to go without Turkey’s cooperation and the use of its bases from which Western and Arab forces would mount the operation. debkafile’s sources note that Turkish leaders are vocal about the pressing need to save the Syrian people, but when it comes to the brass tacks of operational planning, they develop cold feet.

The eight-point military plan rejected by Obama was first revealed exclusively in DEBKA-Net-Weekly 530 of Feb. 24. We are rerunning those points here since at some point - if the “humanitarian corridors” project fails to take off- the plan may be put back on the table.

1. A group of nations led by the United States will reserve a quarter of Syrian territory (185,180 sq. km) as a safe haven for protecting more than a quarter of the nation’s population (5.5 million people) a under a collective air shield.

More http://www.debka.com/article/21778/

Originally Posted by pjohns

These are reasonable questions.

For openers, I would suggest that it was wise of Israel to decline to give the Obama administration the usual heads-up. And not only for the reason you noted--"plausible deniability" is, indeed, probably a part of the equation--but also because the Obama administration has been jaw-droppingly unfriendly to Israel (and the Netanyahu administration, in particular). So Israel should, in my opinion, just do whatever it believes it needs to do, in response to a hostile country in its own neighborhood that poses an existential threat to the tiny state of Israel.

It is likely, I think, that this could lead to a wider war in the Middle East; and maybe even to the start of WWIII, involving Russia, China, and Venezuela, in addition to other nations. Not inevitable; but entirely possible.

Still, I do not believe it should be within America's province to try to dictate to Israel what the latter may or may not do, in its own self-interest...

Oh heavens.. the US has no reason to go to war over Israeli paranoia..

This whole scenario is simply political exploitation so Israel can continue to expand Jewish only housing in the occupied territories.. Every military officer and every diplomat has known so for the past 60 years.

Israel isn't afraid of Iran..

Originally Posted by Margot

Oh heavens.. the US has no reason to go to war over Israeli paranoia..

The noun, "paranoia," is highly tendentious. And highly inaccurate, in my opinion.

In any case, the US has a history of supporting its allies; so it is entirely possible that it would do so here, too.

Given the Obama administration's (almost ostentatious) frostiness toward Netanyahu and Israel, however, that is really not a certainty. And even less so, given that 2012 is a year divisible by four.

Originally Posted by Margot

This whole scenario is simply political exploitation so Israel can continue to expand Jewish only housing in the occupied territories.. Every military officer and every diplomat has known so for the past 60 years.

The bold (but rather empty) declaration that "[e]very[one]...know[s]" this or that is really meaningless; as arguments go, it is a very fragile one, indeed...

Originally Posted by Margot

Israel isn't afraid of Iran..

Well, given the fact that a nuclear-armed Iran could utterly obliterate the tiny state of Israel (and Israel could not deliver a similar death blow, considering Iran's much greater size), it does not seem at all unreasonable to suppose that the Netanyahu government is concerned about a hostile Iran.

And all the more so, considering Iran's frequently stated desire to wipe Israel off the map...

I only see one reason that the US might get involved in such a conflict. And it has nothing to do with Israel itself, but possible Iranian escalation.

Iran has long been somewhat of a "loose cannon" in the region, just as Iraq was in past decades. When either threatened with an attack or attacked itself, they may lash out at anybody. And they have done so in the past, attacking neutral countries during the "Tanker War".

This is why so many nations in the region have opened their arms and welcomed the US to come in and set up bases and missile defense sites. They have realized that they can not rely on the "good graces" or Iran not to attack them if war broke out.

The way I see the US getting involved is more then likely after an Israeli attack (or even possibly either a feint, or a feared attack that may be nothing more then a misidentified passenger aircraft or Iranian practice mission).

In some way, Iran is (or fears it is) under attack. And they may either respond with attacks against Israel, or may simply lash out at all possible threats. And what nations in the region are going to just ignore missiles flying over their heads? Between Israel and Iran is Syria and Jordan. Now Syria will lkely do nothing, but Jordan might take grave exception to Iranian missiles flying over their nation.

And with the track record of the Shahab missiles (both in accuracy and ability), there is no saying that some of these missiles might land on Jordan. That would most likely bring them into the conflict.

And if they try sending in their own air strike, they will fly over Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Both of these nations will react with force to that, because the strike could be comming at them as easily as against Israel.

The Middle East is a powderkeg at the moment. Much like Europe had been prior to the first half of the last century, it is primarily made up of 2 factions. One has accepted the fact that Israel is a good neighbor, and is willing to live in peace if left alone. The other still wants to destroy them at almost any cost. And it only takes one incident to get both sides moving against each other.

And with the US being a supporter of Israel and having bases in most of the nations in the area, that would also be a big target for Iran to attack. Being seen as either the puppet or the puppet master by Iran, they would likely be a secondary target. Which brings in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and other nations. All against Iran. Because Qatar will not care if Iran is attacking Doha itself or Camp As Sayliyah. Any missiles launched at Camp As Sayliyah will do extensive damage to Doha and the surrounding areas.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

I only see one reason that the US might get involved in such a conflict. And it has nothing to do with Israel itself, but possible Iranian escalation.

Iran has long been somewhat of a "loose cannon" in the region, just as Iraq was in past decades. When either threatened with an attack or attacked itself, they may lash out at anybody. And they have done so in the past, attacking neutral countries during the "Tanker War".

Your history is a bit faulty there. The Tanker war was started by Iraq first off when they attacked Iranian tankers and the vital oil terminal at Kharg island and then Iran struck tankers that were carrying Iraqi oil but which were under flags of other middle eastern states who came to Iraqs help.So these were not neutral countries at all,they sided with Iraq. Iraq of course started the war.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Your history is a bit faulty there. The Tanker war was started by Iraq first off when they attacked Iranian tankers and the vital oil terminal at Kharg island and then Iran struck tankers that were carrying Iraqi oil but which were under flags of other middle eastern states who came to Iraqs help.So these were not neutral countries at all,they sided with Iraq. Iraq of course started the war.

If you notice, I did not say who actually started the war. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Both Iran and Iraq indiscriminately targeted tankers of all nations. And steps were taken to try to stop all of the attacks by both of these nations.

And you have to realize, there was no single "Tanker War", this type of combat was off and on for over 3 years. And no, it was not just Iran attacking tankers with Iraqi oil. Both sides were attacking any ships in the region that did not fly their own flag. Kuwaiti, Saudi, Panamanian, UK, even US (was the USS Stark carrying oil for Iraq?).

In total over 500 civilian ships were attacked, by both Iraq and Iran. Both are equally guilty of this event. It got so bad that between 1986-1987, both the Soviet Union and the US started to reflag Gulf nation tankers as ships in their own merchant marine, in order to provide them escorts through the region.

However, the biggest attacker in this was Iran by far. They even started to place artillery pieces on their oil platforms, turning them into naval pillboxes for attacking civilian shipping. And they also attacked 2 different Soviet ships that were attempting to protect Kuwaiti ships.

http://reference.allrefer.com/countr...n/iran172.html

I am not sure how old you are, or if you even know of this beyond reading about it. I remember it very clearly, already being in the Marines when it occured. And when the Marines took over an Iranian oil rig, they also removed a Soviet Zu-23 antiaircraft gun from it. This gun (last time I saw it) used to sit in front of the Barracks on Camp Lejeune for the Marine Battalion that took it between 1988-1990. I saw it there almost daily.



This is where it used to sit (NW corner of the building, next to the parking lot). I do not see it, so it likely has been moved to wherever that Battalion is headquartered now, or placed into storage somewhere.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=camp+l...olina&t=h&z=20

Originally Posted by Mushroom

If you notice, I did not say who actually started the war. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

No one said you did. I got the point you were making. You were saying Iran bad for attacking neutral shipping when in fact the shipping was not neutral. The ships belonged to the countries that were transporting Iraqi oil under their own flags to help Iraq out in its war with Iran. That does not make them neutral at all,that makes them allies with Iraq.

And no, it was not just Iran attacking tankers with Iraqi oil.

You seem to have left out that bit in your previous post to show Iran in a bad light in a war that they never even started.

However, the biggest attacker in this was Iran by far. They even started to place artillery pieces on their oil platforms, turning them into naval pillboxes for attacking civilian shipping. And they also attacked 2 different Soviet ships that were attempting to protect Kuwaiti ships.

Not going to include the Americans coming down on the Iraq side after they attacked the USS Stark? Shooting down an Iranian civilian aircraft liner? Attacks on Iranian war ships by US forces?

I am not sure how old you are

I am 61. I remember it happening thanks.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

No one said you did. I got the point you were making. You were saying Iran bad for attacking neutral shipping when in fact the shipping was not neutral. The ships belonged to the countries that were transporting Iraqi oil under their own flags to help Iraq out in its war with Iran. That does not make them neutral at all,that makes them allies with Iraq.

You seem to have left out that bit in your previous post to show Iran in a bad light in a war that they never even started.

Actually, I mentioned Iran because the Iraqi government of that era no longer exists. Prior to 2003, most of the nations in the region were trying to protect themselves from Iran and Iraq. Once the Ba'ath party fell from power, Iraq was no longer a threat to nations like Kuwait.

And to get an idea of the way alliances can shift, you have to remember that Kuwait was one of the biggest supporters in the region of Iraq. Yet once the war failed, they were the first country Iraq attacked.

As for blame, I place it equally on both Iran and Iraq. But the point I made is still valid. The nations in the region still remember Iran for attacking them when they were neutral. This is something that not even Nazi Germany did openly to the US prior to their entering WWII.

Originally Posted by The Third Man

I am 61. I remember it happening thanks.

You have to realize, I ask because a lot of people who post in here were born long after these events happened. They mostly know of them from normally reading very one-sided reports made long after the events actually happened.

Trying to explain things like this to the younger group who have never researched it is often frustrating. It is like when I try to explain to the kids I serve with what serving during the Cold War is like. They grew up in the aftermath of the Gulf War, and during the recent conflicts. They can't comprehend the tension of that long ago era.

I am 47 myself, and often find it interesting to serve alongside kids that are younger then my son is. When I will talk about how things were when I first served, to them it is like ancient history that they do not really understand.