My linked writings (please click here) on Salafi-Jihadist groups and their pursuit of 'inspired/homegrown' attacks against the west. This is a particularly serious concern for EU security services. If interested in reading my other writings on Middle Eastern politics, please click here.
Ain al-Asad air base, which ISIS again threatens. Note critical strategic location in between Freeway 1 and Highway 12. US advisors have been stationed at the base since November. My related links here.
Senator Feinstein's CIA report is both fundamentally biased (selective use of intelligence/subjective application of intelligence/no interviews with CIA officers) and functionally flawed (I explain why here). It's also sparked a wild fire of chaos for US intelligence allies (as I explain here). Regardless, most media coverage - even from top, professional outlets - has followed the Democratic spin. Just look at some of the headlines below...
When it
comes to Syria, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been keen to
shelter Israel from the civil war’s chaos.
On occasion,
however, he has taken military action to address urgent threats.
This
weekend, it appears, he has done so again.
According to
reports from Syrian state media (Israel has refused to comment), on Sunday, Israeli
fighter jets bombed targets in Al-Dimass and Damascus. Located along Syria’s route
1 highway, and a few miles from both Damascus and the Lebanese border,
Al-Dimass offers an opportune smuggling position for Iranian weapons supplies
to Hezbollah. The attacked locations might also have stored Russian military
equipment.
Regardless, while
this military action sought to protect Israel’s qualitative military advantage
over its enemies, it also likely had other, more psychological, objectives.
First off,
by striking Assad in his capital, Israel is sending a message to other regional
powers. Having successfully penetrated Assad’s capable air defense network
around Damascus, Israel is showing its capability to employ surprise attacks
with relative impunity. To be sure, while striking Iran would be far more
complex, by again hitting an array of targets, Israel has visibly flexed its
military muscles. Crucially, Netanyahu wants Iran to understand that he isn’t
bound by the nuclear diplomatic track, and that the IDF remains on high
readiness alert. Today, this Israeli messaging-objective has never had more
impetus. As Iran grows more confident in its nuclear negotiations with the P5+1
and continues covert weaponization activities, Israel is desperate to keep Khamenei
off balance.
By
extension, these strikes were also likely intended as a message to President
Obama. With relations between the US and Israeli administrations now toxic,
Netanyahu wants Obama to understand that he’s openly ignoring the US demand to
avoid any action that risks a greater conflagration. By rolling the dice with these
strikes, Netanyahu also hopes he can persuade Obama to inject harder-line urgency
in his diplomacy with Iran. ‘If you don’t’, Netanyahu is implicitly threatening,
‘I may end up doing what you most fear’ – taking action against Iran anyway.
These
strikes are also intended to warn Russia. With President Putin growing more aggressive and increasing his military support for
Assad – including by providing advanced anti-aircraft platforms –Israel wants Putin
to fear that his escalation will meet reciprocal aggression. Indeed, with
Russia’s deputy foreign minister having met Hezbollah’s leader in Beirut on Saturday, Netanyahu wants Putin to know that he’s
watching. This stated observance has a power of its own. After all, in its
cultivated reputation for unpredictable aggression, Israel’s security apparatus
commands respect.
Ultimately,
reflecting Clausewitz’s theory that military action is the “continuation of political activity by other
means”, these strikes are about more than
destroying some weapons. Seeking consolidation in an increasingly unstable
Middle East, and with his governing coalition broken, Netanyahu wants to
broadcast strength. By taking this action, Israel’s leader is thus sending a
unitary message to allies and foes alike: I will act aggressively, and if
necessary, alone.
