It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iran's Troop Build-up On The Golan Border!!

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 06:57 AM

Originally posted by the_sentinal
pieman, nygdan posted that link trying to be cute IMO it was obviously intended as a put down to the credibility of the debka site which is not even in the same catagory IMO

Ok fair enuff..My appologies.

On to the topic.
Ok my question is, if Israel has already made threats against invading Irans airspace and destroying their property, why is it wrong or inconceivable that Iran would want to place troops in a strategic area where they could retaliate easily?
If Israel does in fact attack Iran and Iran declares war, which they would be in rights to do if Israel invades their airspace, then USA will surely go to their aid, so of course Syria is going to back them. What is so different about this scenario that makes it so newsworthy anyway or unbelievable? Its a smart move on their part since they are so far away. Saddam Hussein allowed it to happen to his country but it seems Iran is not going to accept an attack willingly without a fight as it happened in Iraq.

Has not Israel placed troops and tanks within Lebanese borders to defend herself in the past? I'm sure if she had allies within the region closer to Iran right now they would have done the same thing a long time ago.


posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:42 PM
Sentinal: I agree with your first point, however it's really not relevant to the Iranian presence in Syria, except to the extent I have already conceded: that it serves as an early warning station. A major buildup would propel Israel into a preemptive ground action just as in the Six Days War, which means that escalation from Syria by Iran would work against their "burn the clock" strategy. It wouldn't be an effective defensive front without deploying such forces as would almost certainly cause an Israeli preemption. So in so many words, I don't think that this changes things compared to the state of things if Iran had no forces in Syria. Israel may opt for airstrikes, and at that point Iran has lost before the war has even really begun, and the only choice left to them is whether or not to retaliate and accept the attendant risks.
So long as we agree that Iran isn't planning on a first strike (and as I have previously described, I think they can't begin to plan such a thing until later) I think the order of things is pretty well confined to one course, depending strictly on Israel's decision to attack or not to attack.

Our new friend Mahmoud may very well intend to start something, but speaking as someone who used to believe in God and the Apocalypse and the Tooth Fairy, I suspect based on my experience that he understands the concept of "meeting God half way" and will want the nukes and a solid strategic advantage before striking. If that were not the case, he could call upon every Iranian to pick up a couple of rocks and a pointy stick and march towards Israel this very minute. The fact that he has not done this suggests to me that he believes he at least needs a weapon and a clean shot at the infidel in order for God to help him win.

As for Israel's continued need to possess the Golan: Things have changed significantly since 1967 and I do not believe that Israel will be destroyed if they give up the Golan.
When Israel preempted in 1967, Several nations not bordering Israel (Kuwait, Algeria, and a few others) had mobilized their armies immediately after Egypt and Syria signed a military alliance and proclaimed their objective of destroying Israel. It was at that time necessary to seize areas from which offensives into Israel could be easily launched, thus the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan had to be seized.

The ever-growing disparity between the antiquated soviet equipment of Israel's neighbors and Israel's own modern hardware has reduced the danger. Israel's strides in relations with Egypt have also reduced the danger somewhat. Above all however, particularly in light of the focus on the Iranian threat at this time, the fall of Ba'athist Iraq serves to insulate Israel from ground attack by one of the most threatening adversaries. Also, lest we forget, Israel has had the capability of blowing an opposing army right off the field with nukes for decades now.

In my opinion, Israel can endure without possession of the Golan. Any reservations Israel may have are understandable, but should be expected to diminish so long as Iraq demonstrates the ability to sustain a stable and non-aggressive government which can be trusted not to allow use of its territory for the prosecution of unprovoked wars.

Short of that however (because I do not suggest that Iraqi stability is a given) we come up against a fundamental question for the morality of preemption. Yes, the Golan is advantageous for the security of Israel, but they could probably get by without it. Should they risk going with less security in the name of morality? And if not, realize that Israel isn't perfectly safe even with the Golan, and would be a little safer if they went into Lebanon and established a puppet state on Syria's flank. They'd be safer if they nuked Iran right now too.

So the question is, where is the balance? How safe is safe enough? How immoral is too immoral? I suspect the answer would be that the Golan is OK because they've already got it and nothing's gone too horribly wrong, but that nuking Iran would be a bad idea. If I'm not mistaken then, international law will be suggested to boil down to "finders keepers".

I can see why they took it; momentary necessity. I can see why they'd be anxious to keep it a while longer. I just don't see why anyone should feel compelled to let them keep it indefinately- momentary necessity swings both ways and someone may sooner or later see fit to kick them out, not unlike they kicked Syria out.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in