American Attack on Syria Announced by Israel
if sinners entice thee, consent thou not—Proverbs 1:10
New in the Website
"On the Way to the Attack"
Wagging the Dog*
On April 28, 2013, there was a 4-hour long meeting of the Israeli Cabinet,** which according to official sources was the first one of the new Netanyahu's government to deal with the War in Syria. The decisions taken were not published; however, a significant part of the IDF Intelligence Directorate (AMAN) assessment was published, in an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
On April 28, Former Mossad Director Meir Dagan (he recently survived a liver transplant in Belarus, no other country agreed to treat him) said during the Jerusalem Post Annual Conference in New York that Bashar al-Assad didn't sanction the use of chemical weapons. Dagan may have committed many war crimes along the years, but he is not a fool. He understands that the claim that Assad used chemical weapons "doesn't hold water" (Hebrew idiom for a false argument, like a bag full of holes). Yet, the IDF wants an American Holy-Democracy Attack on Syria.
One decade after the Mother of All Battles, Israel is again attempting to wag the dog.*
The Grandmother of All Battles
Unaware of its inconsistency, Yediot Ahronot claimed in the same article that Bashar al-Assad is winning (this is true, see Syrian-Kurds Exodus = Assad's Victory?) and a few lines later that he "had used chemical weapons out of despair." Any trick is kosher in the attempt to wag the dog into the Grandmother of All Battles.
After thinking that its propaganda had convinced the readers, the newspaper continued by portraying President Obama's options. It used the graphic reproduced above. Let's review what Israel recommends Obama:
1. Air strike on the units that attacked with chemical weapons. Disadvantage: Time is needed to collect intelligence.
2. Air strike on Syrian air force and ballistic missiles units. Disadvantage: Sinking in the Syrian mud.
3. Enforcement of a non-fly area in Syria. Disadvantage: It will not neutralize Syrian artillery (many times stronger than the Israeli).
4. Taking control of chemical weapons depots. Disadvantage: It demands a ground attack and the Americans oppose.
Then the Israeli article, which looks written by the military intelligence, goes on describing the desired attack. Also in this case, it published a very graphical depiction of the event. Here it is:
It marks the main chemical warehouses in Syria, and the American-British forces Israel wants to use in order to destroy them. Cyprus (the British Colonial Empire still owns two air-force bases on the island) and Jordan would provide the military bases needed for air-strikes to be conducted by American F-16 and British Tornado fighters. Tomahawk missiles would be launched by American and British war ships while British Trafalgar class nuclear submarines will fill an undisclosed task.
Most veterans will recognize this as a schematic Order of Battle.
Bashar al-Assad Reacts
These are strange times. An Order of Battle is made public by one side of the conflict before the battle while the other side reacts publicly on the same day. How would Sun Tzu have reacted on this ridicule?
Russian Izvestia published an impressive interview with Bashar al-Assad. Let me just quote a few remarkable sentences:
"From the beginning of the crisis, the USA, the UK, and France have tried to get militarily involved. They tried to change the positions of China and Russia in the UN Security Council, but they failed. They failed to convince the world that this is an intelligent step. They can open a war, but they know neither how long will it be nor to which areas will it expand. They understand that they have no control on that. What is going on in Syria is not a popular revolution, but terror. Western leaders cannot tell their people: 'We enter Syria to support terror.'"
"Failure awaits America as it has happened in all its wars from Vietnam onwards." He is mistaken. The USA utterly defeated Grenada.
"Why Israel opens fire against our forces every time we defeat the terrorists next to the border?"
The claims on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government were defined by Assad as "an insult to the intelligence. It is nonsense. First, they put you on trial and only after they collect evidence.... On Wednesday, we were blamed, and only two days later the USA announced it would start to collect evidence." This is not the first time that the American Government displays a misunderstanding of the term "evidence" (Iran Shows Captured Drone; USA Claims "No Evidence").
Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov has also publicly denied the existence of proofs that Syria had used chemical weapons. The Western mercenaries are the most likely users.
Certain things could not be said openly by Bashar al-Assad; luckily, this diplomatic limitation has been solved eons ago. Halef al-Maftah, a senior member of Assad's party who until recently was the assistant of the ministry responsible for PR, gave on the same day an interview to American Radio Sawa in Arabic. He explained the mysterious hints in the Assad interview:
"Damascus considers that Israel is behind the violence and thus it will be under fire. We have strategic weapons, and we can react. Basically, the strategic weapons are aimed at Israel. If the USA or Israel will commit the error of attacking us using the chemical issue as justification, the entire area will experience unending fire."
Yet, after the Israeli public was convinced that the weapons existed, the second stage of the campaign began. Analysts working for the main Israeli newspapers claimed Israel should adopt the same tactic used by Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir during the Mother of All Battles, namely the First Gulf War. It should let the US destroy the perceived enemy.
** A long time ago, Israeli Prime Ministers discovered that their governments are dysfunctional. They are large and plagued with coalitional interests. The temptations to publish secret deliberations by ministers who know that they cannot be fired are significant. Thus, they created the "Cabinet" a small and informal body of ministers who meet regularly to take decisions delicate issues. Ministers wishing to keep their place in this exclusive body are forced to remain silent.
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please donate or buy The Cross of Bethlehem or Back in Bethlehem.