Before beginning this post, let’s make clear that the recent chemical attack which killed over 40 Syrian civilians is only the precipitating event regarding what is the main purpose of this post. There may be some readers who feel the need to commence a debate about who did what to whom, etc. That is not the purpose of this post and please do not make it the subject of the comment thread.
As I wrote, the Assad regime appears to have dropped chemical munitions on a pocket of Damascus suburb which was a longstanding rebel holdout. There had been negotiations between the Islamist group which occupied Douma since roughly the beginning of the civil war, and the Assad regime. The goal of the talks had been to remove the rebels and allow the government to resume control without fighting to the death to do so.
However, Bashar al Assad is now feeling his oats as his allies have bolstered his regime and helped him resume control of much of the territory he lost since 2011. Apparently, either the regime tired of the drawn out talks or wished to make a point about its power and ability to force its will on these rebels (podcast) and others holding out in other areas. The chemical attack led to the desired result as far as Assad is concerned. The rebel Islamist group today agreed to evacuate. And the dead are testimony to this foul deed, for which I hope that both Assad and the Islamist butchers who fought him are hauled before the ICC in The Hague.
But the real discussion here is about the aftermath of the attack. What will all the different sides do as a result? Especially the U.S. Donald Trump has put himself in a box. A few days ago he did a Bush mission-accomplished ‘dance’ in which he opined that America’s 2,000 troops could soon be welcomed home. He did this over the strenuous objections of all his military advisors, who warned that all our gains against ISIS and what little influence we have remaining in Syria will evaporate once we pack up and go.
On the other hand, Trump has denounced the attack in such strong terms that it will be almost impossible for him NOT to act. You’ll recall that the last time there was a similar attack using chemical weapons Trump launched a few cruise missiles at the alleged base where the attack originated, then declared victory. The entire exercise was pathetic, empty and laughable as far as the Syrians were concerned. If this were any other time, I’d say that we can expect more of the same regarding this week’s assault.
Except this is not any other time. It is the time of Bolton and Miller and Pompeo: hawks all. This clique will be arguing for a huge escalation in the U.S. commitment to Syria. At the least, they will lobby for a meaningful military response including attacking targets important to the Syrian regime. Not to mention that Iran’s key role in supporting the Assad regime makes it a rich target for war hawks like the ones I mentioned above. While Trump seems to be someone who can divide his hatred of Iran from its role in Syria, these advisors and the Israeli government certainly cannot do so.
The Israelis have been strenuously lobbying Trump to stay the course in Syria. WIthout U.S. cover, Israel becomes a lone player in Syria as it seeks to stem the tide of Hezbollah and Iranian influence in the southwestern region which abuts Israel. When you stack up the power that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah wield inside Syria, Israel doesn’t hold much sway in comparison despite its more than 100 military interventions over the past few years. If Iran and Hezbollah decide to challenge Israel in the Golan, the latter may have to go it alone. The most Trump would offer is token verbal support for Israel’s complaints about Shia encroachment.
The media falsely reported that the U.S. had attacked a Syrian-Iranian air base in the past few days. In fact, Russia revealed that Israel had attacked the base. This is an odd development for a number of reasons: Russia has in the past remained silent when Israel attacked Hezbollah or Iranian targets inside the country. There seemed to have been a de-confliction mechanism by which Israel would attack and Russia would stand back.
Now, that agreement, tacit or not, seems to be unraveling. Russia seems to be saying that it will no longer do so. And Bibi seems to have miscalculated how much Russia was willing to tolerate, with potentially dire geostrategic consequences for Israel. Russia’s truculence may be part of a new flexing of muscle by the ascendant powers in Syria, who are warning Israel not to exceed its ambitions in restraining the forces of Hezbollah and Iran.
In the past, Israel has worried that it may have to fight another war against Hezbollah as it did in 2006. But that war was confined to Lebanon. What if Israel must expand and fight a two-front war in both Lebanon and the Golan (Syria)? What if, besides Hezbollah rockets, Israel must face both Hezbollah fighters and its Iranian allies in one or both theaters of operation? Even if Israel feels it is prepared to do so, it changes the calculus profoundly.
Israel refuses to accept being relegated to the role of reactor. It prefers to be the one to determine facts on the ground, including the battlefield. But the new scenario in Syria may force Israel to accept a diminished presence; a diminished ability to project its power and to force desirable outcomes on its enemies. This will drive Israel’s generals and nationalist leaders crazy. It might, in fact, lead to a rash act of belligerence like a major attack on Iran itself along with its new bro, Saudi crown prince Mohammed ibn Salman. If this happens, it will be an act of hubris of the sort that toppled great Greek heroes in tragedies of the past.
I am disappointed to see that you accept without question who is accused by the US of doing this but also disappointed that you don’t want to question or explore that but prefer to run off on a discourse based on hypotheticals. I don’t see where that advances anything. The last such accused gas attack was shown subsequently by the inspectors not to have happened.
A man of your undoubted acumen should at least be asking “Qui bono?”
[comment deleted: nice move. I specifically say I don’t want to get into a pissing contest over who did what to whom & what do you do? Nope, we’re not going there.]
“I hope that both Assad and the Islamist butchers who fought him are hauled before the ICC in The Hague.”
don’t hold your breath
Yes, Israel will have to go it alone because US influence, like elsewhere around the world, is diminishing. The new power broker in Syria, if not the Middle East, is Russia, bolstered by Iran and Hezbollah, and it is THE party to talk to. Netanyahu has made numerous visits to Moscow in recent years to beg Putin for understanding of Israel’s concerns. Putin lent him an ear but did not do anything.
No, Israel will not attack Iran, for 2 reasons:
1. The IOF is a bunch of cowards, preferring to take on a defenceless people, 16-year old girls, 3-year old toddlers, the elderly, the weak, rather than a real opponent.
2. If Israel attacks Iran, Iran will launch all its missiles onto Israel, as will Hezbollah (100,000-150,000 of them) from the north, and with such a deluge Israel will be toast. Israel could launch its nuclear missiles against Iran, but not against Lebanon as the nuclear fall-out would severely affect Israel too. And, despite Israel’s nuclear attack (if it were to happen), Iran would still be able to fire enough missiles at Israel to inflict enormous damage. There is no way any Israeli government could justify to the electorate the consequences in Israel of an attack on Iran.
The US cannot possibly prevent Israel’s roasting during such a combined Iranian/Hezbollah attack, even if it were to destroy both Iran & Lebanon completely. That destruction would not happen because Russia would not allow it. In fact, Israel is the US’s soft underbelly in the Middle East: it could be wiped out literally without the US being able to prevent it. Israel & the US both know it, and THAT is what is driving Israeli generals and nationalist leaders crazy.
The tables have turned in the Middle East: Israel & the US have lost, they know it but are, for now, refusing to accept that new reality.
Oh and Saudi Arabia is a total non-entity, with a risible army that cannot even win against a rag-tag group of rebels in Yemen.
So basically, Hezbollah and Iran getting stronger assures peace, because there is more of a balance of power, and Israel can no longer do whatever it wants.
A no fly zone (US , Israeli or otherwise) wouldn’t be so hard to accomplish – but would involve conflict with the Russians (Bibi wouldn’t have the balls, Trump maybe).
An offensive push from Jordan (Saudi Arabia), the Golan (Israel), and/or from Syrian Kurdistan (Kurds, US proxies, US) – to capture the southern half of Western Syria – Damascus-Homs – probably won’t be terribly costly (what will be costly – is the day after).
Regarding what Israel will do – I’m of the school that Bibi is chickenshit (ala Goldberg and Obama) – and will do nothing of his own accord that take a risk. Bibi – in a natural state of affairs – prefers to do very little (but talk a great deal).
The real wildcards are Trump and the Saudi crown prince.
Do Saudis have trained Military? Rich..
‘No, Israel will not attack Iran, for 2 reasons…’
I think the reason why Israel will not attack Iran is more subtle.
If Israel herself simply attacks Iran, she makes herself a pariah. The rest of the world will break off relations with her, and even the US will be forced to mute her support.
The idea is to get the US to attack Iran. Then we’re in it together with Israel, we both become pariahs, and she has us all to herself. It’s a short-sighted policy that assumes our power is eternal and infinite regardless of how badly it is misused, and that the American people can be fooled forever, but as far as I can tell that is the idea.
This is not, of course, to rule out variations on the theme. Israel could ‘strike back’ after a black op that gave her apparent justification and ensured the US would be in close support. However, two conditions will almost certainly be sought; first, that Israel not simply be an obvious and lonely aggressor, and second, that wherever she goes, the US follows too.
Israel is hardly our ally; that mistakes the relationship. But it all is a bit like a Texas cattle drive. We’re the cows and Israel is the cowboy. She controls and directs us, but the whole enterprise depends on us following along. She can’t just ride off to Dodge City by herself. That serves no purpose at all.
: Colin Wright: why would Israel become a pariah by attacking Iran? There are plenty of countries that hate Iran so an attack on the country would be welcome. Besides, nobody dares to criticise Israel, never mind breaking off relations and that is because of 1 fear only: getting stamped as antisemitic.
‘ Colin Wright: why would Israel become a pariah by attacking Iran?’
Go ahead and attack Iran and see what happens. In fact, use a nuke. I earnestly recommend this course of action.
Colin, why this habit of referring to Israel as a woman? Is ‘she’ a damsel in distress, or something? You don’t have to turn ‘her’ into a ‘he’ either. Neutral ‘it’ would be just fine.
‘…You don’t have to turn ‘her’ into a ‘he’ either. Neutral ‘it’ would be just fine.’
Are there any other strictures you wish to impose?
@ Colin: this is exactly the sort of snarky crosstalk I don’t like. Pls respect that.
Okay. I refer to Israel as a ‘her’ because there are some traces of gender left in English grammar, and countries are usually feminine. Elizabeth did ask. She’s welcome to use ‘it’ if she likes. It wouldn’t occur to me to object.
It does not have to do with grammar (English does not have grammatical gender), but with style. As a writing style it is considered old fashioned and quaint. (“I was in England for 2 weeks, and I really loved her!”)
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/12632/is-it-a-good-practice-to-refer-to-countries-ships-etc-using-the-feminine-form
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/is-a-country-a-she-or-an-it.html
A weird ‘she’ now and then, who cares, but the thing is, you use it so often (5 times in your first two sentences alone) that it started to grate. But please go ahead if you prefer that style.
‘As a writing style it is considered old fashioned and quaint. (“I was in England for 2 weeks, and I really loved her!”)’
Perhaps inconsistently, in that sentence, I would say ‘it.’
I think it’s a matter of whether the country is viewed as a passive object, or as an actor (actress)? As a passive object, ‘it’ has nice scenery. As an actor, ‘she’ sends a fleet to protect ‘her’ interests. That may be more inconsistent still, but there it is.
I don’t see the usage as ‘old-fashioned and quaint,’ but simply as a matter of not caring to pander to political correctness carried to the point of absurdity. Perhaps it will all go the way of ‘who’ rather than ‘that,’ etc; but in the meantime, I’ll carry on with what strikes me as good English.
Why on earth bring political correctness into this…
‘…Not to mention that Iran’s key role in supporting the Assad regime makes it a rich target for war hawks like the ones I mentioned above…’
The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.
In this case, our handlers seem to have decided that the way to US-Iran war is through Syria. There’s something manufactured about this whole ‘poison gas attack’ episode. The attack was hardly necessary, and given world reaction to previous episodes, it was patently stupid. It’s possible Syria and HER handlers were this dumb, but I’m suspicious.
…Maybe just US-Hezbollah War. Israel and Saudi Arabia may be willing to settle for us reprising Iraq in Syria and Lebanon. That’d help to explain that curious episode where Crown Prince kidnapped Lebanon’s president-or-whatever-he-was.
…morality aside, I’m about as attracted to the idea of war with Hezbollah as I would be by the prospect of trimming a weasel’s toenails. Hezbollah may be small, but it has sharp little teeth, and it can bite.
Israel’s ability to dominate and Terrorise the region is coming to an end.
It will have to come to peace arrangements with it’s neighbors which will include withdrawing from the Syrian Golan and giving up it’s Apartheid in Palestine.
Only when Israel realised it has the Same Human Rights, not more than the others, will it move towards peace.
Let’s hope that it not a War that finally convinced Israel to do the right thing.
War is, and has always been, Israel’s choice. Time for the Alternative.
Hola Nils,
“Only when Israel realised it has the Same Human Rights, not more than the others, will it move towards peace.”
But Israel’s neighbours have human rights problems as great, or greater than Israel. How can you expect Israel to make peace with, say, a government that gasses it’s own children, or a country run by religious fanatics.
That makes no sense. Or maybe you can explain it to me.
@ Frank: Hi to our new resident hasbarist. Frank, read the comment rules carefully and respect them during your stay with us. Israel has a horrible human rights record and any Arab frontline state could make the same excuse as you offer in distrusting Israel’s trustworthiness. Countries don’t make peace with angels, nor do you have to be an angel in order to sign a peace agreement. Plenty of sleazy countries and individuals sign agreements and honor them. Israel, if it ever does, would be one of them.
Do us a favor Frank and try to make your hasbara a little bit more imaginative. Don’t plow ground that’s been plowered scores of times before here. If you do, we may have to recommend you return to Hasbara Central for retraining.
‘Israel’s ability to dominate and Terrorise the region is coming to an end.’
If only. On the contrary, Israel’s ability to dominate and terrorize the region is greater than it has ever been.
She can bomb Syria at will now — no one even raises an eyebrow. I’m confident she had a great deal to do with Morsi being replaced by a government in Egypt more pleasing to herself. Israeli and Zionist billionaires were the biggest contributors to the campaigns of BOTH candidates in the last US election. Now she’s even getting Britain to toe the line.
Israel’s riding high, wide, and handsome, fella. It can’t last forever, of course, and Zionist hubris will tumble her off her horse sooner or later.
We can only hope it’s sooner — and it could well happen. But don’t kid yourself. Israel is more powerful than she ever was before.
Some hope after all. This from Middle East Eye:
‘Syria strike may be a blow to Trump’s right-wing base
Conservative commentators and far-right activists are turning on Trump for considering military response in Syria…’
The government and chattering classes may have been well-house-broken, but the great unwashed still keep getting off the reservation. All those ‘deplorables’ — however to bring them to heel?
Haaretz demonstrates an unexpected gift for understatement.
‘Trump Adviser Bolton Coordinated U.S.-led Strike in Syria With Israel.’
No doubt he did.
You say:
“As I wrote, the Assad regime appears to have dropped chemical munitions.”
So you’ve finally revealed yourself for what you are…..
Goodbye Richard.
@kevinherbert: good riddance to bad rubbish…
Wahh!
In his criticism of Trump’s attack on Syria in The Atlantic, Eliot Cohen argues that Trump’s attack was grossly inadequate:
‘…In this case it would have been air attacks to smash the Syrian air-defense system, destroy helicopters and aircraft, and above all kill a good number of the men who conducted these attacks and the men who ordered them. It would probably have killed some Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah militia members too. Not proportionally, even then, but something closer to justice, and more importantly, a use of force with a sound strategic purpose…’
But…jeepers. That would bring us into conflict with Iran and Hezbollah.
…and I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Eliot Cohen is a prominent Neo-Con, and one of the founders of the ‘Project for an New American Century.’
Go figure.
Meanwhile, Robert Fisk further muddies the waters.
Was there a poison gas attack at all? He doesn’t say there wasn’t a gas attack. He merely observes there’s a suspicious lack of evidence to support the claim.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy … 07726.html
See Eliot Cohen in the Atlantic: the Neo-Cons are decidedly chagrined Trump didn’t take advantage of this opportunity to start a war with Iran.
…and here’s the Jerusalem Post: decidedly all dressed up and ready to go to the beach.
http://m.jpost.com/
The whole thing stinks.
How come the word massacre doesn’t appear once here?
You use it multiple times in your article about Gaza demonstrations but here you use the very settle word chemical attack.
@ Jim: If you want to parse word choices, I suggest you get your own blog and make your own. I don’t answer to you and make my own choices.