America, Syria, Israel and Iran: An Analysis

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no sympathy for the Syrian regime; if you do, I think you're deranged and haven't got the first clue as to how a good government should function.

Nevertheless...

In may of this year, Syria received missiles with an advanced radar from Russia to make them more effective to counter any future foreign military intervention. In early July, the missiles location in Syria, the port city of Latakia, was reportedly targeted by Israel in an air attack.

Now, in late August, the latest in a series of chemical weapons attacks (15 is the commonest number being reported) is being broadcasted worldwide. It is being claimed that this attack is "larger" and so deserves greater attention. Because Obama had drawn a "red line" over the use of chemical weapons, his government is now pursuing punitive measures.

It seems to me that Israel and America have been working together over the past few months to take down the Syrian regime. It began with an IDF's air strike on Latakia to remove the threat of advanced Russian anti-ship missiles. With the missiles gone, the Syrian regimes use of chemical weapons against it's civilians could be exploited as a reason to carry out "limited" operations against Damascus from ships off the Syria coast.

Now, as said in the opening disclaimer, the current Syrian regime is morally rotten. They SHOULD Be removed, and ideally, a democratic government should replace them. However, the rebels at war with the current government are motley and unorganized; it is not certain that removing Assad will improve the situation.

Of greater concern is the potential backlash of an American attack, and it is for this reason that I consider any attack against Syria to be highly ill-advised.

There are reasons for and against removing the current Syrian regime:

Pros

Syria is a close ally of Iran, and as such, provides logistic and geographic support to the Iranians

Syria is a liason between Iranian made weapons and Hezbollah in Lebanon

The current Syrian regime is non-legitimate; it is non-democratic, dictatorial, and perpetual. It is a foul representation of Syrian demographics; Syria is 85% Sunni, and only 11% Alawi. The ruling family is Alawi; most of the Syrian parliament is Alawi. Most of the Syrian army is Alawi. It is in other words a mafia regime which terrorizes over a population opposed to it's reign.

Cons

Could quickly destabilize the region. Both Syria and Iran have threatened to attack Israel if Syria is attacked by America. The consequences of a counter-strike are IMMENSELY GRAVE and should be considered more deeply.

Either Syria or Hezbollah, or possibly Iranian ballistic missiles, could rain on Tel Aviv following an attack on Syria. Knowing Israel, they will not sit idly by following an attack, but will let loose their jet-fighters on both Southern Lebanon and Syria.

It's frightening to think what could happen in this scenario. With America having attacked Syria, and Israel responding with their own attacks, will Iran get involved? It's as this point that political scientists differ. The web of events that will likely occur are:

America attacks Syria
Either Syria or Hezbollah attacks Israel
Israel attacks either/ or both Syria and Hezbollah

Here is where matters become more murky. This can either instigate the collapse of the Syrian regime - as hoped - or could spark a much larger and scarier regional war. As Alan Dershowitz pointed out in a segment on CNN, this Syrian situation merely foreshadows the one between Israel and Iran. The Israeli's undoubtedly want a weakened Syria; the Alawis are strategically aligned with Iran; perhaps a Sunni, albeit, even one with radical elements, would be preferable to a borderline shia government with more interests in common with the Iranians.

Hezbollahs existence is enabled by Syria. They get their arsenals replenished through Syria. It is thus a high-priority interest that Syria no longer be able to serve that role for Hezbollah.

Iran, conversely, is fully aware of this; they know Israel wants the collapse of Assad because of what Assad provides for Iran. The question is: will Iran accept this situation? Will they tolerate a new status quo? Or is losing Syria as a liason-state too great a loss for them to incur? And would they be forced to respond themselves to an American-Israeli operation against Syria?

This is a frightening set of circumstances.

For Israel, this is probably a preferable course of action. Iran is a threat that will probably not go away any time soon; Hezbollah is a menace that they would prefer not to live with.

On the other hand, America can very much tolerate not getting involved in this squirmish. Of course, a stabilized and democratic middle east is in America's interests, but it would be a great favor to Israel for America to contribute their military capability to an operation against Syria.

As much as I care about Israel and believe they deserve the right to live in peace, I think the risks are still too great. Russia complicated this situation further by offering their support to both Syria and Iran. Worse case scenario: this situation devolves into a world war.

edit on 31-8-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

You gave 3 pros for the demise of Assad .... 2 of them were because he is friendly with Iran ... I would discount those as I dont see why being friends with Iran should mean you have to go.


The third reason you gave was because of a minorty alawi/shia controlling a majoity sunni.

So can I ask you what your take on Bahrain is where Saudi backed minority sunnis control a majority shia population. Should the shia rulers of Bahrain be bombed by USA ?

War is a crime. Not one country can justify war, as we understand it. All warfare is immoral, with its destruction of civil infrastructure, devastation of innocent lives, crippling of women and children, permanent displacement of refugees, theft of material resources, and scorched earth policies.

It is a crime against humanity, it is a spiritual crime, for any individual to impose their will on another.

Those who attempt to warrant warfare, most importantly any political leader, corporate officer, military commander, holy man, or mercenary -- are the sole enemy, and the only justifiable quarry in a theatre of war.

reply to post by bigyin


Yea, because that was my argument.

No, to restate - since you obviously missed it: Syria is the liaison between Iran and Hezbollah. Hezbollah causes trouble for the region. Thus, if you remove the Shia affiliated Alawite Bashar Al Assad from power, you a) create conditions for a more lasting peace in the middle east by circumventing the link between Iran and Hezbollah b) free millions of Sunni's from illegitimate Alawite rule.

Unless you think Hezbollah is a good thing - which would mean you are pro-terrorism - there isn't much you can oppose about Assad being removed from power and Hezbollah losing their means of replenishment.