Is Israel bombing Syrian chemical weapons plants?

And if so, is it doing so with the permission and encouragement of allies both old and new, both familiar and very strange indeed?  There seems to be a whole lot of smoke and mirrors at work in the Middle East right now.  Consider:

I can’t help wondering whether, in the convoluted maze of Middle Eastern politics, alliances and skullduggery, Israel isn’t effectively acting as Washington’s ‘point man’ by intervening in Syria.  It’s very much to Israel’s advantage to neutralize stocks of chemical weapons in that country, which might otherwise be used against it;  and to do so is entirely in keeping with its previous actions in this conflict.  Furthermore, it’s even to President Assad’s advantage to see his own stocks of chemical weapons destroyed, rather than allow them to fall into the hands of his internal enemies.  It might just be that there’s collusion at the moment between some very strange bedfellows indeed . . .

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Peter

7 comments

  1. YAWN; Honestly I hope they kill each other off. The sooner we are rid of BOTH the Jews and Arabs (and there endless genocide) the better off America will be. Its long past time to build a wall around the middle east, and not look over it till one side or the other is gone. Then Nuke the winners.

  2. You may be correct about this. However with Obama's arms length regard for the Israels, who are reputed to have the best intelligence network in the world, I think it's more likely that the Israelis are acting unilaterally and that Washington, obsessed with lobster, gun control, and relieving us of our pesky rights under the Constitution, which they see as a quaint old document, is pretending not to notice.

  3. If we ARE backing the Isrealis, I agree w/Jane that Obama's set to give it up at a moments notice, throwing Netanyahu(?) to the wolves. And anon is a fool.

  4. "There are reports that Iraq's chemical weapons program may have been 'exported' in its entirety to Syria prior to and during the Iraq War…"

    Ah, yeah, well…those would be a big part of the "fictitious" WMDs that Saddam Insane "didn't have", right? The ones that were in those trucks that were "allegedly" seen racing off into Syria from Iraq as the U.S.-led Coalition military was invading…

  5. Obama seems to think that the two most dangerous things for the world are US and Israeli sovereignty and each country's means to protect it.

    With that in mind, he has successfully degraded US capabilities to the point at which a quick response to a major Iranian provocation coordinated with a Chinese one might well be a problem.

    Israel in turn has requested and been denied bunker busting US bombs and a way to deliver them. Without them, and without other support which the USA could provide or arrange for, any Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear program will be more difficult. However, since a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, Israel must take serious risks to prevent it. Those risks include likely international condemnation and harsh sanctions.
    American participation in these sanctions "more in sorrow than in anger" is very possible under Obama, and would likely cripple Israel. But for some of Obama's foreign policy team, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

    So, is the looming security debacle due to Obama being incompetent, or is it policy in the pursuit of a goal most US presidents would reject?

  6. If we don't help with bunker buster bombs, the Israelis may be forced to resort to using one of their tactical nukes. They are estimated to be #4 in the nuke owners club these days. Including 8500mi range ICBM's.
    I'm thinking the Arabs and Persians have a death wish, and some day in the not too distant future, their lands will attain glow-in-the-dark status.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *