(+Video) Is Washington Pushing Syria to Attack Israel?

...It appears that in the White House of today they haven't heard of the old invention of Professor Kissinger and they disperse any fog related to Israel: responsibility for attacks in Syrian are again willingly leaked, and again point the blame towards Israel.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Commentary..
31 October '13..




"Israeli warplanes struck a military base near the Syrian port city of Latakia this week, an Obama administration official told CNN on Thursday.."

We Israelis have a pretty straightforward arrangement with Syrian President Assad: when we are compelled to strike Syrian targets we don't take credit for the attacks. President Assad knows damn well who is behind the attacks but in the absence of Israeli boasting he doesn't feel compelled to respond.

Yet recently Washington has seen fit to rub Israel's responsibility for attacks in President Assad's face.

What is President Obama' team trying to achieve?

Why are they pushing President Assad to retaliate against the Jewish State?

And don't think for a moment that despite the bloodletting that Syria isn't still bristling with a full complement of rockets that have basically every point in Israel within range.

I don't have an answer.

But if I were a Washington reporter I think that's the possibly the most interesting part of this story that I would want to follow up on.

Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=62217

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Israel Radio Reshet Bet morning news magazine Anchor Arieh Golan
1 November 2013

Why Israel Shouldn't Attack Iranian Nuclear Installations--Unless It Has to Do So

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 July '10

(An interesting article, but with a number of what I believe to be questionable assumptions. While '67 was a model of a preemptive attack in time, '73 was a deadly failure, reversed only through courageous effort, and with great loss. In the case of a party whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, preemptive should be the denial of the ability to do so, as opposed to allowing deployment with the hope of a first strike removing the threat in time. Y.)

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations for the purpose of trying to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at all would be a mistake. Instead, Israel should plan--and indeed is planning--for a multi-layer campaign of airstrikes, missile defenses, and other measures in the event of Iran ever posing a specific threat of attacking Israel.

Before going into the details of why I'm saying this, however, let me stress that this is not something likely to be a central issue in the near-term future. That is precisely why we should discuss it now.

Let me also emphasize that Israeli plans should be in place such that if there ever would be an imminent threat of an Iranian attack, it should be preempted. What should be avoided, however, is an Israeli attack based merely on the goal of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons at all. It is far better to risk setting of a major regional war only if there is a need to do so, as happened, for example, regarding the 1967 war, a preemptive attack required for self-defense.

Of course, Iran's having nuclear weapons is an overall danger for Israeli interests, wider regional stability, and U.S. interests. Such a situation would in theory open Israel daily to the possibility of an Iranian nuclear attack. Yet history shows that Israelis would adjust to this situation, if remote as it would likely be, without panic or paralysis. Given a calm analysis, however, and the alternatives, a preemptive attack on Iran possessing a few nuclear weapons and long-range missiles would make matters worse, not better.

Here's why:

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.